Indy net cap

[Pippin]

I can see number 3 being useful, but not necessarily 1 and 2 as number 2 would greatly decrease your networth. And number one could be abused by using rats constantly instead or skiffs or stoats.

[Shadow]

Could you elaborate, Neo? I don't see the implications.

[Firetooth]

No thanks on those second two spells. Fix Wildcat instead of giving all indies its abilities, and option two seems...pointless? Workers are produced at a very quicky speed, all you have to do is lower your tax rate to 5% and they come in masses.

I do like the first spellsuggestion though.

[Neobaron]

It wouldnt decrease it, it would redistribute it.

I realize it doesn't turn troops into food (lol whatsanupkeep) but it also doesn't turn them into thin air via mercs. Plus workers do a thing I think, so why not.

Number 1 is to streamline the indy leader acquisition process since at some point someone decided that players who are exclusively troop oriented still need to maintain leader facilities in order to compete. Notice I made the cost spectacularly high. 10% turned into 1%, which will in turn vanish. But you don't have to waste land, and you don't have to mess around with numbers or effort, kind of like leader players.

2 and 3 do the worker change. I understand this forces an indy to build tents, but 10,000 tents can house 50,000,000 troops. And if you're making enough troops to fill up 10,000 tents, you can spare the land. Either way, it makes indy a longer term thing, and creates the same kind of issues leaders have (IE taking all of someones land causes that person to lose their stuff.)

Either way, it is an idea.

[Pippin]

But with turning troops into workers, rats cost much less and you can produce far more than say skiffs, so if you spend 200 turns making troops, you would have a lot more rats to turn into workers than you would have skiffs.

[Firetooth]

Good point. I think the conversion would have to be relative to the troops value. 1* worker for a rat, 2 for weasels, 4 for stoats, 6 for skiffs.

Or something along those lines. I'm too tired to think of the actual numbers, just that workers converted would have to be proportional to troop value.

[Neobaron]

Not necessarily. Army training and the 25% (62.5% for reconversion) loss would negate any gaming of the game that anyone would want to do.

100*.75=75
75*.5=37.5

Theres also the issue of paying for what you make. I think 38 skiffs costs a bit more than 100 rats don't they?

I don't really see why this is an issue. Leaders can already sort of do what you're talking about with cash. Someone can net on cash and look pathetic, but that net can be instantaneously converted into billions in troop net at the drop of a hat. They just can't maintain it. It is an end-game move. Turning your 100 million rats into 37.5 million skffs would be a jump in net, but you can't maintain it.

[Firetooth]

Huh? I'm talking about converting troops to workers, not other troops. Or are you as well? I don't understand how your post is related.

Edit: I think I know what you mean. Converting 100mil rats into workers then converting those workers intos kiffs, right? Maybe you're right, I'm tried.

[Neobaron]

Edit: I think I know what you mean. Converting 100mil rats into workers then converting those workers intos kiffs, right? Maybe you're right, I'm tried.

Correct.

---

A concern that nobody has pointed out yet would be farming loyalty and then cashing in at the end. To fix it, nuke worker gain rates for indy races.

[Kilkenne]

Military Academy; (0 loyalty, 0 ratio)
Up to 10% of your army is turned into 1% of the value in leaders.

Stand Down; (scaling loyalty, 25 ratio)
Up to 75% of your army is turned into workers.

in conjunction with-

Call to Arms; (scaling loyalty, 50 ratio)
Up to 50% of your workers are conscripted into the army (according to troop settings.)

If you did this, you'd have to make it so that those workers can't just leave if there aren't enough tents, or leave at a lower rate or something. Workers are like leaders when there aren't enough houses for them. I like this idea, though, personally, it lets Indies have a storehouse, which is something that has been discussed before, but doesn't unbalance them ridiculously.

[Neobaron]

Right, the losses to losing land is an intended side effect. Like I said, it would give indys the same issue as leaders have.

If you take their land, they lose their stuff.

Adds a huge risk for a huge reward.

[Genevieve]

How is it a huge reward? Isn't the cap still there, as when you stand down more and more troops, you'll need more tents, which means you can't have as many barracks and keep producing at the same rate?

[Kilkenne]

How is it a huge reward? Isn't the cap still there, as when you stand down more and more troops, you'll need more tents, which means you can't have as many barracks and keep producing at the same rate?

This, this is what I was saying, workers are similar to leaders in that they leave when there aren't enough tents etc. I think that's what I was saying. I'm not sure. Anyhow, I like this.

[Neobaron]

Ahh you're saying that it will work like losing huts -> losing leaders. I don't mind this loss. It makes sense.

Lucy is saying that over time you will have to pour more and more land into tents in order to maintain the housing for your armoy conversion. Which makes sense, actually. Will have to think through this.

[Shadow]

That still doesn't give indies a way to keep net long term. Leaders leaving doesn't affect net you have already made. But there is no analogue for indy in this scenario. Once your workers leave, and your troops can't be supported from upkeep, you have to dump troops and we are back where we started.