Gnomes

[taekwondokid42]

I put this in turbo because it would start as a round idea.

Basically the idea is to throw in a third troop type. Right now you have leaders and armies. They don't have to be called gnomes, I just couldn't think of anything redwall related. Gnomes would be able to take land, take money, food, damage leader ratios, kill troops. At the same time, troops and leaders would also get the ability to decrease gnome count.

A race would have to be added that is specifically effective at gnomage. The key would be balance. Leaders are very effective when firefighting indies, so gnomes should be very effective when firefighting leaders, and indies should be very effective when firefighting gnomes.

At the same time, each strat type would need some way to defend itself against it's weakness. For example, indies can add a little protection by raising defenses. (At the very least it increases the number of turns needed to destroy an army). This takes leaders, but few enough that an Indy can safely raise defences. One gnomish action would inhibit other gnomes from being effective, which would help leaders somewhat but not a ton. Building towers could somehow reduce the amount of damage that gnomes recieve from indys.

This would make land harder to lock unless the settings were fiddled with some. Maybe this is a good thing and maybe not.

Right now, indys can get lots of NW very quickely, and generally do not suffer from heavy loss of land each run. Leaders gain NW slowly and suffer greatly from losing very large portions of land. I'm thinking that gnomes should aquire land slowly but are fully effective on their land immidiately. Gnomes gain NW faster than leaders but slower than indies.

In terms of holding NW, indies max out within a few runs, leaders never max, and gnomes should max in something like half of a turbo round. Indies, when under attack, lose NW very quickely. Attacks don't usually need to be coordinated, and are usually effective at removing most of the indies NW. Attacks on leaders usually take multiple people, must be timed right, are usually very difficult, but usually remove most of the users NW. Gnomes should be harder to attack than indys, but not by a whole lot. And gnomes should only lose a portion of their NW in an attack. Say 30%. Multiple people attacking Gnomes would result in greater losses. Basically, losses would be consistent, but low on a per-turn basis.

Leaders live in huts. Troops collect in barracks. Gnomes reside in gardens. Barracks can house an unlimited number of troops, and gain consistently. Huts can only house a limited number of leaders and take time to fill. Gardens would have a specific number of Gnomes and be instantly filled. 10 gardens = 10 gnomes. The only way to kill gnomes is to destroy the gardens. When leaders > 175*huts, leaders leave right while you take turns. Gnomes leave without turns.

Leaders attacking leaders can be effective, but also suicidal. Indys attacking indys can be effective, but also suicidal. Thusly, the same  follows for Gnomes.

Every turn, each gnome collects some diminishing amount of food/money, just as leaders collect in diminishing values in huts. The user can decide which is collected and in what ratio, like an Indy can decide the ratio to which he gains the 4 army types. Money and food collected by gnomes is also hidden from leader attacks. Money and food gained through trade, foragers, ect. is not. Money and food collected through means other than gnomes does not affect howmuch money gnomes make. Gnomish money os always gnomish money, and if given to a player without gnomes will dissappear. Like huts however, gnomes can hold much more money and food than they can collect.

When an Indy sacks an empire with gnomes, the Indy converts the money from gnomishness to normalness, and gets 1% os opposed to 1/4% recieved from sacking normal money.

When gnomes attack for land, they only get a little land. But they lose almost no health and they take the same percentage of resources from the person as they take land.

Gnomes are selfish, and will only spend gnomeish resources if all of the empires other resources have been spent.


I think it's a great idea that would add oodles of strategy to this barren and boring land of redwall. Winning would take brains instead of just playing the most. Redwall needs this third troop type to make it more engaging. Either that or these gnomes are just useful for soothing my mind when I have insomnia and redwall had strategy enough already.

This whole post typed on my iPhone at 5 am.

[Shadow]

I like the idea of using a triangle scheme to balance things (leader>indy>gnome>leader). A lot of games use that concept actually, and done right it can add a lot to gameplay. More on this later.

[Holby]

Respect the idea, but I think you could achieve what you want without all that hassle.

I do think there needs to be more variety in strats used at RWL, but what you're suggesting would change game mechanics entirely. It would require massive amounts of time and effort, and for a result we're not even sure would be balanced and playable.

The way you've written it, these Gnomes sound overpowered, and the way they interact with players running leader/indy strats doesn't seem to be completely thought out. And that's a really big point to consider.

Rather than introducing something so drastic, making some minor changes could produce a lot more strats.

Like working the market to be able to run a casher strat. Or Making Sack more powerful, but only in Standard attacks, which would force people to defend their land more. Maybe decreasing leader production efficiency further at higher Nets, much like at the 100 mil net mark. Even reworking Skiff races to be more profitable.These are small changes that will give the game a much different emphasis.

We don't need something completely new, we need to tweak our existing game to work better for everyone.

[Truth]

If you were trying to relate "gnomes" to Redwall use shrews or ermine.  Shrews wouldn't really go with the whole "vermin" theme of RWL but they are close to gnomes imo

[taekwondokid42]

I was thinking Abbots, who live in abbeys. The way to balance them out a bit is that leaders can live in abbeys (abbots are very hospitable) at a rate of up to like 300 per abbey. They can't do anything from abbeys because missions are based off of leaders per hut, which means that leaders in abbeys are only for defense.

Or something like that.

Either way this was just an idea I had and I just wanted to let my creative side take over for a bit. Realistically this is never going to happen.