Poor Penfrey.  He tries so hard.  So young and ambitious...

I'm personally more of a fan of the special abilities coming from a pool and once someone gets one no one else can get it.  It will allow each of us to feel unique rather than having people that have abilities that are similar.  No copying the same ability you have yourself either.  Otherwise, it seems to take the "special" out of Special Ability.

In reply to The System (msg # 576):

Penfrey got what was coming to him.  Or his great-grandfather, however you look at it.

That family has been chasing me for two or three years now.  And it's always me.  xD

Leader vs Unit Abilities (where Leader pays 4gp to 'train' a unit vs a bigger bonus to 1 unit).

The Unit Bonus should be at least double whatever the leader can train and possibly have some little extra like:

Piledriver - Leader can train units for a +10% to gathering stone or a Unit can gain a +20% and a +1 on each dice (OR 1 unit out of every four is HQ).

In reply to Sylvia Starhelm (msg # 579):

I don't know if I can agree with that, Sylvia.  After working with this system for the past several years, I've learned that giving a double bonus tends to cause the system to spiral out of control in short order.  Double plus would probably make it spiral worse.  I actually would say that some of the problems we're having with gold and resources spiraling out of control is because the System and I didn't put things on a sliding scale as well at first.  We have to be extremely careful when it comes to the numbers for bonuses.  Otherwise, it can lead to rather extreme advantages that relegate the other types into obscurity.

For example, the bonuses as they are already have me picking the non-Leader bonus every single time.  If they got that much better, it makes that choice even more skewed.  We're trying to get it so that choosing the type of bonus (leader or non) is more of a choice of play style rather than anything else, I believe.  Correct me if I'm wrong, System.

The way that things are I was taking the Leader bonus EVERY time because the alternate just wasn't good enough. The last one I got was +15% to Crafting with stone for 4gp vs +20% Crafting with stone with some kind of slight reduction in cost. I put +15% on 9 of my units (36 gold, which was nothing to either one of us guys packing 500+ gold as a reserve) and gained a total of +135% just from that bonus and a +25% Craftsman Tools. I would have not been able to get even close with just the +20% to one unit.

Almost every Leader vs Unit bonus that I came across was similar. I didn't even contemplate the Unit bonus cause it was so small.

Then that's a question of stylistic difference at that point since I took every unit bonus and never took a leader one.

Which is exactly what we're looking for.  It's a preference difference.  If there are people choosing the opposite, it means that it's not a question of it being underpowered.  In my opinion, I hated the leader bonuses because they would force me to spend a bunch of resources plus make my units all the same with a lesser bonus.  While I would probably like the crafting one, some of the others I had just weren't as good as the unit one.  Plus, it allowed me to make specialists and break up my units into small specialist forces more easily.  Worked great for most of the game until I had more gold than I knew what to do with.  But, I stuck with the strategy.

It probably then depends on the bonus you are getting.

In general I think the Unit bonus should be double the Leader buying bonus, but the Leader bonus should also be lower.

I thank you both for the discussion points.

I know when we were first working on creating the scale - a lot of the decisions depended upon which area of the game it was affecting.

So - scale-wise: combat abilities tended towards the 5s. (as-in +5 to x) per tier - roughly.

Whereas crafting/construction/renovation tended towards the +10s. (with smaller 'reductions' as Sylvia noted to break-up the extending scale.)

And scouting/harvesting was allowed to spiral upward quite a ways.

What I have learned, however; is something.... along the lines of what both of you have mentioned - plus something else.

1) Combat effects will be scaled to the new d4 system (giving serious consideration to being a d6 system.)

Most bonuses will be a single +1 to a given roll.
The next 'tier' will be +1 to each of 2.
Then +2 to a single.
Then +1d4+1, and +1 to other(s).

- None of this is hard-n-fast yet - just thinking.

2) Explore/Diplomacy will stay in the +4 realm. (per tier).

3) Scout will be in the +5.

4) Lair actions will tend to be around +4 but have other effects.

5) others will be mixed between +s and more dice (such as an extra harvested d4, or setting minimum values.)

The quick version of the above:

the 'maximums' will be coming down.
the minimums will remain relatively the same.
more effects will be thought-of instead of adding pure +s.

I would say you were correct.  I would also say - that as with the result of your conversation: there WAS room for situation + playstyle.

I would argue that Talonrel's playstyle tended towards a degree of specialization.  You had a single crafter- thus: a strong Unit-version was favorable to you.

Sylvia's forces tended to mix-n-match their tasks week-by-week; thus generic bonuses all-around were useful.

Even Ronja and Alhamandriel had a similar dichotomy.

In an attempt to actually answer the key point of the discussion (to double or not), I think I will hazard a guess regarding at least one of Talonrel's concerns:

- Handling it when the choice may either be potentially too good, or for when doubling is not necessarily the most effective option.

As these two (examples) below actually game up in the game, I'd like an idea of how you two would change (if at all) them.  I believe Sylvia, your point is that the effect should be roughly 'double' - if not outright numerically, but, at least in potential.  I'll say - I don't necessarily always have a good way to do that.  That could mean all abilities simply need a major re-write altogether, or maybe just a more creative touch:

[Cross Trainer, Tier1]
Focused: This Unit may choose to forfeit a single Leveling XP, if you do so; this Unit gains an additional Skill XP instead.  It must be a skill in the same category.

Enlightened: This Unit needs one fewer XP to level (minimum 1).

[Cross Trainer, Tier2]
Focused: This Unit may choose to forfeit a single Leveling XP, if you do so; this Unit gains two additional Skill XP instead.  It may be a skill in the same category.

Enlightened: This Unit needs one fewer XP to level (minimum 1). You may forfeit two skill XP, if you do so; this Unit gains an additional Leveling XP.

[Cross Trainer, Tier3]
Focused: This Unit may choose to forfeit a single Leveling XP, if you do so; this Unit gains two additional Skill XP instead.  It may be any Unit-allowed skill.

Enlightened: This Unit needs one fewer XP to level (minimum 1).  You may forfeit one skill XP, if you do so; this Unit gains an additional Leveling XP.

[Cross Trainer, Tier4]
Focused: This Unit may choose to forfeit a single Leveling XP, if you do so; this Unit gains three additional Skill XP instead.  It may be any Unit-allowed skill.

Enlightened: This Unit needs one fewer XP to level (minimum 1).   You may forfeit any earned skill XP, if you do so; this Unit gains an additional Leveling XP for each forfeited XP.

---

[Myrmidon, Tier1]
Battle Drills: When determining XP after Combat, treat this Unit as if it were two levels-lower for purposes of determining the force average.

Battlesage: After combat, in additional to all other XP gained; this Unit gains 1 additional Combat XP. (only applies if this Unit was in combat.)  Treat this Unit as if it were one level lower for purposes of determining the force average.

[Myrmidon, Tier2]
Battle Drills: When determining XP after Combat, treat this Unit as if it were three levels-lower for purposes of determining the force average.

Battlesage: After combat, in additional to all other XP gained; this Unit gains 1 additional Combat XP. (only applies if this Unit was in combat.)  Treat this Unit as if it were two levels lower for purposes of determining the force average.

[Myrmidon, Tier3]
Battle Drills: When determining XP after Combat, treat this Unit as if it were four levels-lower for purposes of determining the force average..

Battlesage: After combat, in additional to all other XP gained; this Unit gains 1 additional Combat XP. (only applies if this Unit was in combat.)  Treat this Unit as if it were three levels lower for purposes of determining the force average. Finally, this Unit may gain one (1) level beyond the maximum. (normally 10.)

[Myrmidon, Tier4]
Battle Drills: When determining XP after Combat, treat this Unit as if it were five levels-lower for purposes of determining the force average.

Battlesage: After combat, in additional to all other XP gained; this Unit gains 1 additional Combat XP. (only applies if this Unit was in combat.)  Treat this Unit as if it were four levels lower for purposes of determining the force average.  Finally, this Unit may gain two (2) levels beyond the maximum. (normally 10.)

For the first one I can't tell which is the unit one and which is the leader one.

In both examples the first one is the 'leader' one (pay 4 gold, assign. blahblah)
the second one is the single-unit one.

Ah. Then, in both of these situations, the leader one is hands down better. Experience effects are much more beneficial on a global stage and skill experience is FAR more valuable than leveling experience.

Keep in mind, not only does the unit specific one (at the higher tiers, anyway) let you go beyond the max in stats (so, you can get a unit that's better, in terms of stats, than it could ever be normally)
But it also gives skill-xp directly.
The bonus from having a lower 'Force Average' needs to exceed 1xp to make a profit there.
Though I will admit it probably would exceed it, at the higher tiers.
Maybe the direct XP needs to be boosted, or the levels subtracted nerfed, at higher tiers?
I chose the Leader one because I didn't have just one specific combat-specialist unit, but if I did I probably would have.

Well, then let's pose the question more directly to you, Ronja.

Although you didn't do a LOT of combat - you still benefited some from Battle Drills (Tier 4).  Did the benefit feel significant?  Did you notice just how fast your Units were reaching level 10? (because you almost had a maxed-out Army)

I agree with TW on those two in specific, except Myridon T4. I would have taken the Battlesage for 3 Tusks or Steelgut to get them D12 or O12. I agree that getting Skill XP's is so much more important long term than Level XP's.

To balance it out you would need to boost up the Unit ability a bit for it to be a real choice to think about.

Unfortunately, I have no idea.
I didn't even notice the benefit from the 'easier to get XP' ability of humans.
Because in both cases, you handled everything behind the scenes, and I just concentrated on applying the XP I got.
And besides, I leveled my units through hard work.

I did notice how fast they got to level 10, though; That's why I didn't mind draining their levels to get XP from the necromancers.
I knew I'd get them back up if I sent them on a few 'missions' I expected to get a high-tier success (or, in the Net Throwers' case, if I just have them keep helping with a less successful task over a longer period)
Heck, it felt less like a level 10 was a 'Veteran' unit, and more like anything under 10 was not 'Fully Trained' - like, a level 8 unit felt risky to put into combat since it was 'missing' a few points of stats that I could get in a couple of weeks.

Interesting.

Ronja - I think that you really hit it there - and part of this problem is how I know players did not feel it was clear how combat works.  It's (hopefully) easy to read the combat page(s) and get a feel for it.  But, without reading how it is all put-together - it's a lot harder.  I know some players have asked for the pages how I 'assemble' the combat information, and I hope they have gotten a better understanding - but, I don't know if everyone feels they 'get it' yet.

I am hoping that switching to the 'smaller numbers' for combat system will make this easier.  It should make it a bit easier to track and understand.

But, amazingly-enough - people really did seem to behave as though Units which were not yet fully-leveled were in some way 'not ready' which was a bit weird.  I think it got easier and easier to 'judge' the effectiveness of Units the more people participated in combat.  Some people, like Talonrel, had developed such a brutal force; that it swung the other way: it became HARDER for Talonrel to judge the difficulty of fights because they all got so easy-so-fast, that he couldn't be sure if he was 'just barely winning' or 'brutally stomping' outside of the actual descriptions.

I am truly hoping to START next-round with at least a simplistic version of the combat sim in place - so that people can play with it and handle combat themselves.

In reply to The System (msg # 594):

Well, in my case, it's less that I didn't understand combat, and more that I didn't understand the opponents.
Especially when Harassing.
Alhamad managed to succesfully Harass with just one unit (and, admittedly, both leaders), with no skills or anything (it was, after all, barely after starting the Round)
I expected to have to fight at least a guard or two, so while I was planning to Harass I wanted to have at least two decent, or three mediocre, fighting squads first.

On the flipside, the gain was way lower than I expected too; 11 gold and 2 food?
You could pretty much average that just harvesting normally, with no risk (though, apparently there was no risk, but I thought there was)
I expected it to be the step before attacking villages, essentially; You start with wandering encounters, then attack travelers and their guards, and then go for whatever there is to raid in off-map CPs.

By the time I was ready to handle the threat I was expecting, I had other goals I was pursuing.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:02, Tue 28 June 2016.

Thank you for highlighting this.  Because of it, I completely get it - and this is what we are hoping to do with the encounter tables in the next game.

"Harass" will be the action people take for chump change because they need quick-cash, but, it will also be the 'early' activity for players to get started with lower risk.
Raids and Attacking the wandering encounters will be the next 'level' of play.
Then outright Attacking Villages or Attacking bigger encounters (such as drakes/minotaurs/dragons/whatever).
Then - Nobles.
Then - Legendaries and other players.

If it makes you feel any better, Ronja, I felt exactly the same way about raiding this round. It took several conversations with the GM for me to get what it was truly intended to do. And I've been working on this thing for years!  xD

In reply to The System (msg # 596):

That was pretty much my progression

So folks know - I've got some work things I need to get through today, but, then I intend to spend the next two-three days getting the next game ready.

Please feel free to ask any questions or offer any ideas in that time.

Hey folks - the new game is getting steadily up and running.

link to another game

I hope everyone is doing well and having fun in whatever else they are doing!  And, if you're playing Pokemon Go - please don't get hit by a car!