Game mechanics idea collection

[Sesu8642]

Here are some ideas for game mechanics that I had or received as feedback from others. Generally, I want to preserve the Slay mechanics as is in some way. New mechanics could be part of a separate mode or even a successor to the game.

• new unit: catapults that can destroy units from the distance
• trees being useful (e.g. by giving wood)
• destroying a capital gives money
• capitals get stronger when they have a certain amount of money
• limited movement range for units

[jmizv]

Hi @Sesu8642
really cool game, thanks.
I would suggest that one has some log messages or an abstract of what happened since the last round. I mean sometime I'm puzzled why my units are gone. A little message like "Some of your units were lost due to insufficient money" would be helpful.

[Sesu8642]

Hi @jmizv,
thanks for your feedback! I will try to visualize this a bit better in the next update. I don't want to annoy the player with too many dialogs or too much text. Some of the ideas I have:

• when you can't pay your units:
  • finance text becomes red and maybe contains a warning next to it
  • units hold signs with sad smiley faces instead of weapons
• when a unit dies, a gravestone appears (like in Slay)

If you have other/better ideas, please let me know.

[bioderm]

Hello @Sesu8642,
first of all thank you very much for this wonderful game.

Here are some suggestions from my side:

• Trees block certain units (e.g. knight and baron).
• Capitals integrate into the area from where the unit is moved (currently it is the other way round).
• Units can be dismissed
• the capital becomes stronger due to the size of the area
• randomly placed gold to collect (especially on the territory of weak players)

I wish you continued success with the game/project.

[Sesu8642]

Hello @bioderm,
thanks for your ideas! Would you mind elaborating the first two?

• What does "block" mean? Can existing units no longer be moved when there is a tree?
• Like conquering the capital?

[aligator]

I know an even older version on the Atari. The rules were basically the same with two major differences: (if I remember correctly)

• when someone died a gravestone was created and in the next round the gravestone was always converted to a tree. (I think thats in O'Conners version/also)
• the base houses in each kingdom did not protect the neighbour fields.

You can get the demo here https://www.janatari.de/atari-firebee/firebee-games/slay-1-0/
And play it with an atari tt / falcon emulator (like aranym)
Sadly there no product key available anymore. Even the original Dev doesn't have it anymore... (https://forum.atari-home.de/index.php?topic=9865.0 )

[Sesu8642]

@aligator Interesting! I wasn't aware of this version at all. Are you sure it is older? It seems like it released in 99 (see https://www.maedicke.de/atari/download.htm) while O'Connor's version released in 95.

I actually don't own O'Connor's Slay either. I looked at some YouTube videos to see how the mechanics work. I probably missed the fact that the gravestones resulted in trees. A colleague told me about this as well. According to him, I missed another detail: The spreading behavior of regular trees and palms differs. But I'd have to analyze how it works exactly.

[aligator]

No I am not sure who created Slay first ^^ I thought it was older, but you may be right, that actually O'Connor was first. I bought his some time ago, but after I already knew the Atari (demo) version. Also the atari version seems to be "Rel. 2" according to your link, so there may have been another version :-)

However I was very happy to find your version in F-Droid because I played the atari demo when I was a child.

I think the gravestone-trees are somewhat important, as you have to look out for that.
e.g.
Your version: you have a tier2 soldier on a 2-field kingdom -> it dies -> some rounds later you may get enough money to respawn a new one.
With grave-trees: you have a tier2 soldier on a 2-field kingdom -> it dies -> you get trees -> you won't get money to respawn a new one.
That may change the gameplay in some situations

The spreading behavior of regular trees and palms differs

Interesting, that's something I wasn't aware of^^

[Sesu8642]

@aligator Since the gravestones are part of the original game, I will probably implement them at some point.

[bioderm]

* What does "block" mean? Can existing units no longer be moved when there is a tree?

These units cannot be placed on a field with a tree. Thus, even the weak units remain important later.

* Like conquering the capital?

No. I am referring to the situation when you unite two kingdoms. As an example, let's take A and B. If you join B from A, the capital will be moved to B. This should remain the other way around. Often one moves from the large well-secured territory to a weak one.

[Sesu8642]

@bioderm I see. Thanks for clarifying.

[Sesu8642]

Improvement idea i received via email:
If there is not enough money to pay all units, not all of them should die. Instead, the player should be able to select which ones to let off.

[d-albrecht]

On the one hand, I can see that not being able to pay the units is a corner case where this is realistic, but on the other hand it clashes with the general rule that no units can be laid off willingly.

However I could see an argument for only letting some units die up to the point where the remaining can be paid. But this again, should work without user input. Because (a) additional options would just slow down the game and (b) this would again contradict the "no manual lay off" rule. But it would have the advantage that you had some units left. As this would have the most effect, I would suppose that the game tries to kill ALL barons. If this works, then you could keep everything else. otherwise all knights would get killed. Then - if still necessary - all spearmen and finally all peasants.

I said ALL units of the same strength because this would reduce randomness. And it would still be somewhat realistic. Imagine your kingdom is bankrupt, why should some baron decide to stay (without guaranteed payment) and others would leave. But as the units only die once your turn starts and you are able to immediate move them around between some units dying and your opponents being able to attack you, laying off some units (aka only three of your five spearmen for example) could work as well.

The problem with this general idea of keeping some units is that it must be clearly communicated that this happened. Otherwise the players will be completely caught be surprise if some units have vanished while others remained.

[d-albrecht]

Another item for this idea collection:
Have a viewable history of a game. When it is my turn, I can enter some "History" mode in which I can step through the whole previous states step by step. Essentially showing me any AI step that I saw animated between turns. Such that I can check what happened without any time pressure. (And can debug AI behavior.)

[Sesu8642]

Idea by @YurishoSan, see #46:
"In cases where i can see I wont be able to sustain the whole army tbe next turn, it should be a valid tactic to decrese army size in advance as to not forfiet the entire army.

This will allow "rush" tactics that eat the money reserves for a direct attack, for example to target an enemy castle, and then cut down the army size before it implodes.

Another use for this mechanic is to decrese army size in order to facilitate a baron. When I know I need a baron i currently need to avoid making speerman, as they block me financialy from making the baron. killing the speerman when the time comes will allow me to make the baron when needed without secrificing my military power before hand. This at the cost of killing the spearman.

This last mechanic should be considered in opossition to the possibility of combining spearman to create a baron, in which case the cost of the spearmen will not be waisted."

[Sesu8642]

Since laying off units or only having some of them die seems to be a common request, I will consider it. But I don't have a good idea for the UI or game logic.

[TheShadowOfHassen]

This isn't a game mechanic idea, but could you set it up theming? The slay I've played allows you to change the looks of the people tiles and buttons. I'd love to be able to change the art to penguins or pirates or other different styles of art

[Sesu8642]

@TheShadowOfHassen i like it but it's not a priority for me for now. It could work well with a "campaign". In the campaign the enemy uses the skin and when you beat the campaign, you get it as well as an option.

[TheShadowOfHassen]

Yeah, I understand, it was just an idea. The campaign integration is a cool idea though.

[Sesu8642]

Via email I received another vote for the ability to combine two spearmen to get a baron.

[Blop32]

Hi,
first off all thanks for the great game!
I really like the mechanics as it is. Not too complex in terms of variety of units, rules etc. It develops its complexity out of simplicity. Similar like go or checkers.
Perfect for a quick brain challenge on the go :-)
In particular the trees can be a real nuisance (which is good), compared to other variants of the game.

However if there'd be one vote I could give for improving the game it would be an improved algorithm to create the levels. It seems random and once you get the hang of the game there are basically loads of seeds that are pretty pointless (in very hard mode). Either its a sure win or an inevitable loose. There are seeds where you can do whatever you want, it will lead to an overwhelmingly powerful enemy or vice versa.
Right now I end up browsing through several seeds and trying to evaluate if its an interesting one.
These could be some ideas for improvement:

• providing each party the same number of tiles and the same amount of units at the beginning (currently it seems number of tiles are evenly allocated but randomly placed. Those parties with several tiles in one block get an advantage in terms of number of units for the first round)
• somehow make sure each party gets the same advantages in terms of starting position. No idea how that could look like in detail. But one almost always wins when starting in a corner with a sufficiently large patch and one almost always looses when placed in the center (multiple front war...). Maybe provide encircled patches some extra bonus (additional tiles or units)
• The loose map density is pretty pointless with the current mechanics. Its basically a point an click scheme where one progresses linearly towards predictable victory or defeat. With ranged units or boats that could change the situation (but make the game overall more complicated. IMHO complexity emerging from simplicity is one of the main characteristics of the game that should be maintained).
  Cheers!!

[Sesu8642]

@Blop32 thanks for your feedback! I moved your input to #35 because I think it fits there better.

[HasbersHz]

I don't know should i ask this here, but i don't want to create new issue. Is there will be big updates and when? I like the game, but i'm feeled bored, because i can tell from first look if i win here or not. Also i would like if "Loose" be more loose and if you can change width of paths.

[NicolasToussaint]

Hello,
I am equally grateful for creating and maintaining this game, @Sesu8642 , thanks !

I find most propositions above very nice, but I would be afraid that some of them bring complexity (I love the fact that the rules are very simple)

Below a few cents on propositions above:

Topic of game start is IMO crucial, will read #35

@Sesu8642 : new unit: catapults that can destroy units from the distance

I had the same thought; if catapults were quite expensive, it would be a great way to help get out of "baron" vs "baron" blocked situation.

@Sesu8642 : destroying a capital gives money

I think that would be great and make much sense. However before this I think the IA players should better protect their capital (they are usually easy to capture)

@Sesu8642, @bioderm : capitals get stronger when they have a certain amount of money

I think that would be nice

@bioderm : Capitals integrate into the area from where the unit is moved (currently it is the other way round).

I personally quite like it as it is :-)

@bioderm : Units can be dismissed
@YurishoSan via this comment

I agree with @d-albrecht 's comment
I think thinking twice before upgrading units because they will have to be paid for is part of the fun.
Selectively killing (without user interaction) from most to least powerful according to remaining money is a nice option imo.

Plus, I wonder how hard it would be to make good use that option in the AI players, making the AI weaker.

Via email I received another vote for the ability to combine two spearmen to get a baron.

+1

[Sesu8642]

@HasbersHz Since this is a hobby project, my time to spend on it is fairly limited. Same goes for the contributors. But as you can see, there are many open issues I would like to implement eventually. Improved map generation is one of them. Just don't expect any large "2.0" update. It will be more incremental.

[Sesu8642]

@NicolasToussaint I agree that the game rules shouldn't be more complicated than they are. If I decide to do major changes, I will do so in a way that at least preserves the original rule set as an option :)
Also: Thanks for your opinion on the other ideas!

[HasbersHz]

@HasbersHz Since this is a hobby project, my time to spend on it is fairly limited. Same goes for the contributors. But as you can see, there are many open issues I would like to implement eventually. Improved map generation is one of them. Just don't expect any large "2.0" update. It will be more incremental.

Ok. I would like to implement some features, but i have many projects.

[Sesu8642]

@HasbersHz No worries. Should you find the time, just let me know :)

[HasbersHz]

Actually issue, why there is no community? I think spending nights playing this game damaged my brain, because i even making a memes about it. I probably should make one somewhere. In tg it`s easier for me. Discord is another way.

[HasbersHz]

And also now I think that "very hard" is baby, because there is too many stupid decisions he is making. Like this two that i think many people encountered: "No baron", for some reason, even if it become a stalemate it is a logic decision; "Sawing the budget to death": "AI" spend budget of whole world for 20 barons, and waiting ten moves for their agonizing death.

[Sesu8642]

I think spending nights playing this game damaged my brain

Sorry for that 😄
Where are you posting the memes? :D
I had the idea to create a community group somewhere too. Probably Matrix. Only issue is that very few people will know that it exists unless I put the link in the game. Which I will probably do but only with the next feature update and who knows when that will be ready :x

Very hard feeling like a baby is probably the result of you playing too much ;)
Yes, there are improvements to be made but there is a separate issue for that. #20