Game Department

[Peace Alliance]

One of my MOST brilliant ideas was that we should make the game interesting.

[Ruddertail]

Meh, lots of strategies is a good thing. However, any combo of markets + barracks is going to weaker then pure either markets or barracks.  Unless you use tents + barracks, where troops come from workers, or something where workers influence production.

[bjornredtail]

Define 'weaker'... You simply need more land to keep the same streignth. Since I never bought into Ragerfur's theories on 'landfat' I don't belive that it is a valid measure of horde streignth, and thus I don't see a problem with that.

[Ruddertail]

Nev, have you played recently? Any promi? Nobody keeps land... It's not possible, except occasionally for an emp. Land flows. Every run, each person attacks for as much land as they can. They run on it, and then somebody else takes it. Nobody keeps land, and everybody has access to (roughly) the same amount.

Thus, with X land availible in game, market/barrack strats will always be weaker then either pure market or pure barrack strats, both of which are more efficient (can do more with the same amount of land).

And... weaker: Less strong, not as powerful, less efficient, inferior. All of which fit.

[Gorak]

to many peeps think that the solution to all their problems in prom is adding more land to the game.
these peeps really need to learn to use their land and turns more efficiently, more land is not the answer.
In fact, it doesn't acually matter  :-o cause everyone has to deal with the same amount.
try playing on sites with far less forgiving codes, such as QMT Classic, and you'll learn to do much with little lands with any strat.

trying to hold lands is a futile effort, there is always gonna be someone who will break you, and if you're focused on holding the lands for your strat to work, it's gonna hurt you waaaaay more then neccassary when they do break you.

[Gen. Volkov]

Actually we just need to keep the land in the game. At QMT they don't delete land like here. I think Nev knows what you are lecturing/telling him about, but he would like to see new strats that aren't pure market, pure barracks, pure farms, or pure huts, because he thinks, and I agree, that would change up the game and make it more interesting and fun.( I think he also wants to see the stranglehold leader strats have on this game broken.)  The oldbies here at RWL have the strats down to perfection. It's not even fun to run anymore. Why do you think half of reg is in vaca? So new stuff is required.

[White Fang]

Yeah, the changes should be major enough to completely remix all the old strats.

[Peace Alliance]

I always said we need to have stratagies that involve using more then 1 building.

[Gen. Volkov]

And I have always agreed with you. XD

[Gorak]

well, when you get it all figured out and have it so you use new strats, I'll prolly strat playing again
I see the point your all gettin at now, I too am bored outta my mind with prom, I rarely ever maged just because it was too easy and everyone else and their dog maged, thats why I focused on indy strats. I normally run an indy/farmer strat

[Peace Alliance]

Ya, well feel free to stick around to help make the game into something you want it to be. You realise this game is built entirely on help from players who wanted to make it better.

[Gorak]

why do you think I'm still around :-D

[Ruddertail]

Meh, I'm all for more complex strats. Just any strat that relys on holding land won't work, or if you make it work, it kills the game. In addition, any strat that relies on more of the odd combos (markets/barracks, huts/tents, etc. just don't have much effectiveness to them.) Maybe we just need to add new buildings and stuff, switch it up quite a bit.

Or, we could introduce some sort of "labor" type model, where you need workers to do things, or workers make stuff work better, etc.

[Gorak]

Valhall strat uses labour, so that you have to build huts to have enough workers to do much anything effectivally.
definitally add some dynamic to the game