April 20, 2020 at 6:48 pm #1931
All – I have written up a list of proposed changes to Midgard which will allow us to better fit it into the current code base. I am running the changes by the GM’s but I wanted your opinions as well.
In order to continue getting Midgard to run again on the Knightguild platform, I can take the time to make some base code changes making it more like Knightguild or I can make some more changes to the base code to make it run like Midgard of old. I think this is really the time to upgrade the code. To that end, I would like to make the following changes and would like your comments:
I will have to adjust the markets to allow for all of the things Knightguild has that Midgard does not have. This will add over a hundred new items to the game, and in some cases make it more interesting to play. In others, it will simplify the reporting.
2. Weapons in Midgard LI, MI, HI, LM, MM, HM
To: Padded Armor (PA), Leather Armor (LA), etc. Short Sword (SS), Long Sword (LS), etc.
Allows up to 3 choices of armor and weapons. If you go with two weapons, the Off-Hand weapons get a minus. So, conversions would be:
LI -> Padded Armor, Short sword PA, SS
MI -> Leather Armor, Shield, Short sword LA, SH, SS
HI -> Chain Armor, Shield, Short sword CA, SH, SS
LM -> Padded Armor, Short Bow PA, SB
MM -> Padded Armor, Long Bow PA, LB
HM -> Leather Armor, Crossbow LA, CB
3. Construction Materials – Metals, Lumber, Stone, Manufactured Goods
Everything in Knightguild is stored in a database with a formula for constructing it. Guild Halls can be used to convert from one good to a higher manufactured good.
Logging -> Logs -> when run through a lumber mill, lumber
Mining -> Iron Ore -> when run through a smelter, Iron Bars
Quarry -> Stone (already cut and dressed)
Manufactured Goods -> can vary; based on type of project –
Flax -> Linen -> Sail Cloth
Hemp -> rope
Cotton -> Cloth -> Uniforms, etc.
Cattle -> Meat -> Provisions & Hides -> Leather
4. Horses – and other livestock; to facilitate adding additional mounts
Horses -> Horses, Riding; Horses, Draft; Mules
Horses, riding – for foot (1), for cavalry (1.25) (200 lbs.)
Horses – any type (2) -> pull light wagon – WAGON rate
Horses, Draft -> pull heavy wagon – WAGON rate
Horses, Draft -> Knight (Plate Armor, Mace, Lance) – WAGON rate
Mules – HORSE rate, foot (1), or cargo (200 lbs.)
Livestock -> Oxen, Elephants, others – move at WAGON rate
Oxen -> pull heavy wagon (or light wagon) – WAGON rate
I want to combine all the buildings (Factional Offices, City Buildings and others) into their own table. Basically, this would allow me to automate their effects and make it easy to add new buildings as time goes on.
Guild buildings are not going to be levels but assigned by the City Leader as to their effect. If you have 6 Guild halls, you could have 4 of them be a distillery, 2 as a lumber mill, etc. This would increase the amount of goods they can produce and control what shows up on your market. It takes time and crowns to retool and their production will ramp up across turns. This will be a new FP action. You also need a ready source of raw materials.
6. Money – Midgard had Crowns. Knightguild has Crowns (gold), Coronets (silver), and Serfs (copper). 1 Crown = 10 Coronets = 100 Serfs. So, 1.23 is 1 Gold, 2 Silver and 3 Coppers. I don’t think this will cause any problems.
Option A – Go for it and upgrade the game. I will have to revamp the rule book, update the turn sheets and then modify the process logic. This will take time; but give us a game that will be easy to modify and expand.
Option B – We stick with Midgard as it sits, I finish the process logic and we have game start. This is the shortest path to playing but gives me the most problems down the road when we want to implement changes. Conversions are a pain and may result in other issues.
Your thoughts are appreciated!
April 20, 2020 at 9:15 pm #1932Steve-KortParticipant
I think it is likely best that you go with Option A. While it means a bit more time up front I think as the game progresses it will make things a lot better. It will make additions and modifications to the game much easier for you to implement. I know at the end of Zan’s game many things did not take place or took longer to happen as he fought with the code. I know in Stephen’s version of the game he was having to hand do a lot of things that he could not get to work.
Speaking for myself I would rather spend a little longer getting things running well and make things easier on you adding and modifying things that happen down the road. The biggest reason this game lost players in the past was delays in turns being run and you being able to quickly add/modify things that change in the future is for everyones best interest.
My question with this change would cities still have Mines, Logging, and Quarry sites that you assign workers or how does that work. Would Mines be divided between Metal, Gold, Silver, Copper, Gems?
April 21, 2020 at 6:06 am #1933ParmenionParticipant
In as much as many of the ‘old timers’ who played Midgard in whatever national iteration would like to play Midgard as it was, to me we cannot wind the clock back 18-20 years. Taking a bit more time now to get things right, is logical. Especially if the traditional choke point of Midgard in regards regular turns (ie.. the GM side of the house) becomes a lot more automated and GM supportive. Option A it is.
April 21, 2020 at 8:28 am #1934windpeoplesParticipant
I think it would be best to make needed changes now. We can wait a little more if that means smoother gameplay. Polish the end product. Make sure the code has no (obvious) bugs. Make like easier on the GMs and make a better gaming experience for the players.
That will give Midgard more life, not less 🙂
April 21, 2020 at 1:32 pm #1935DreamWeaverParticipant
Speaking as a IT Professional (DBA/Architect/Project Manager) the worst time to make changes to code is while it is live and in production. In talking to Jon, he can put in place code changes to make the code look like Midgard of Old, but eventually he would need to back-out those “fixes” and enable code that might cause other issues and etc. It would be far better for him, the game and us to have him just work with the new code and make the planned changes he wants from the beginning and let us start with a working Market system and etc.
So I vote for Option A , and making the changes here in Test now so we have a better working and playing game.
April 21, 2020 at 2:21 pm #1936FutureSojournerModerator
Option A seems the best option. Makes the game more “modern” and let us work the bugs out now rather than put on code “band-aids” that will need to be fixed later.
April 21, 2020 at 3:25 pm #1937MutantguitarParticipant
I think that option A is the best course. Once I learn a process, my brain breaks if I have to reprogram it.
Hmmm. Guild Masters may eventually unite the members and strike for benefits or pay.
April 21, 2020 at 4:48 pm #1938NazarethParticipant
Option A looks good.
April 23, 2020 at 1:16 pm #1939
Looks like option “A” has it. I will start on the rule book changes and move on to the data schema, and migration.
April 26, 2020 at 10:43 pm #1941ShadowleavesKeymaster
April 28, 2020 at 5:26 pm #1945
If no one has any objection, I will convert the current armaments / stockpile / markets from -> to:
LI -> Padded Armor, Short sword
MI -> Leather Armor, Shield, Short sword
HI -> Chain Armor, Shield, Short sword CA, SH, SS
LM -> Padded Armor, Short Bow
MM -> Padded Armor, Long Bow
HM -> Leather Armor, Crossbow
Horses -> Horses, Riding
Wagons -> Wagons, Light
Factional buildings for Factions that no longer exist – get reduced to component parts
Metals -> Metals
Lumber -> Lumber
Stone -> Stone
MF Goods -> MF Goods (not really the same, but several guild buildings can produce them.
Livestock -> Cattle
May 5, 2020 at 12:58 pm #1992windpeoplesParticipant
I do not know how differentiated weapons and armour are in Knightguild, but HI perhaps merits a heavier weapon (could even be a different one for each faction that fields them). Longswords, waraxes, flails, morningstars, and war maces could have similar combat results, but add variety.
Just my 2 cents.
May 1, 2020 at 1:02 pm #1964PendrakuilParticipant
I’d do it all – you know your system best and unless its game changing i wouldn’t worry
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.