Knights and Merchants.net Forum

You are also able to skip your first stonemasons Bloodtree. You can build those while building the sawmill, so probably more than 2 min and 40 sec can be used for trees. It's also possible making two fast woodcutters instead of the one you are talking about.

I am only one who did test!

Doesnt matter really. He already said that it depends on many things of a location/map. When he will cut one tree first, than he will propably plant a new one at his next job. Or the other way round. Its clear when you have a map with 1 tree at the base, that the woodcutter will waste time with planting, so this building system would make more sense than in some maps with many trees at the base.

I don´t think I need to understand this,right? Only because the new RC is nearly dead now and you maybe don´t see any players, that are playing right now, because of the 2 changes(building system + archers) it doesn´t mean, that noone tested this RC, excepted you !

Maps where are only 10 trees for each loc will look good?

Ok i did some testing
With the old build-order you could have you first two woodcutters after somewhen around 9 minutes. Now you can have them already around 5 min , what means that they have around 4 minutes more to plant. 4 minutes planting for two woodcutters are like 16-20 trees depending on timing and space ( small space gives the woodcutters less possibilitys to go far away from their house -> this results in faster planting of trees caused by shorter ways to walk ). So you will need around 20 less trees to balance the treeproblem for the earlygame. I would change the trees by taking some of the trees around the base and also taking some timber away from the storehouse. Like that it won´t be likely to run out of timber too early and also the map hasn´t to suffer too much in his look.

Also you need to go for less pt because most buildings come earlier, what means that you are able to make more weapons , so 55 pt should be one good way to go.

Depending Stone at the beginning im not really sure because you need loads of stone for the way earlier upcomming buildings . So it might be that the stone in storehouse for the old RC´s could also be balanced for this RC but i think that needs more testing.

Also food has to be changed because the foodproduction will also be earlier , what means that with the current food in storage you dont really have to worry that much about foodproblems. But to find the right balance it needs also definatly more testing because different strats need different foodsupplies to be more or less effective.

Border rivers should have a very very hard time now to be balanced. The map has big distances to resources like gold on some locs while other locs have smaller distances. Because of the earlier unlock of the mines ( earlier woodcutters-> earlier sawmills -> earlier mines ) those locs will have an easier job getting early to the mines than the locs with high distances have. With the old build order you had more time to get to the far away located resources because the minesunlock would come later. But however this map was campy anyway so maybe it just needed this to get a complete remake

Maybe we should have something like "oldschool-maps" so just a selection of good old maps to keep some maps with the old buildorder , so that people who like the original building can play those oldschool-maps. Ofcourse there could be also rebalanced versions of those maps that allow people also to play with the new build-order so you can also play those maps without being forced to use the old build-order. This few "oldschool-maps" can be created with the use of the scripts.
New maps shouldn´t be with the old build-order imo because you can balance them from the beginning on for the new build-order, which is really usefull and was a great idea because it makes the game faster and more interesting in the start , the only problem with it is that old maps can´t adust that easy to the new build-order.

your test is invalid because you dont take stonemasons into account and also the time that it takes to build the woodcutter vs the plantin that the woodcutter has already gone through and on top of that the woodcutter going to his house to work.
as proven by Pizzaisgood

To win a game you have to win your opponent who have same opportunities as you do. Where is part in that what makes it easy?
Easy vs easy is same as hard vs hard.
Can any one explain to me why is bad to have large army or good city?

I disagree completly. Easy vs easy isnt good. I know it from other games, when a map is too easy, than both has big armies, but it just doesnt make fun anymore(often), exactly BECAUSE they have that big armies, with no problems. Its the mentioned "challenge" here, when you must look for wood and co. So you must "do your best" for your city.

I like BloodTree's point. He has said something I also think.
I played many strategy games in my life (that's my base experience).
The main target complain now, seems to be that "running out of wood" has less probabilities now. This is true.

Even if start phase is easier, there will be always small details which will make certain players get an advantage (pro tips), over those who waste lot of tiles placing bad their buildings, forget of empty mines to be quickly replaced, etc.

Then about buildings competition... what do you say about a base made by 25 labourers vs 40 labourers, the "new balance" allows to play with many builders again, because you can now build more stuff, thus play with 40 labourers again as in the past, and compete wilder IMO.

At the end of 60 PT every player will certainly have an army, but the production rate to replenish lost soldiers will be the focus of competition.

Well first this game isn´t just about defeating your enemy. I for myself play this game because i have fun at building my town and then there is also the nice part of fighting after pt. If i lose or not is not important as long as i had fun at building and had some nice fights. So for me the game isn´t fun anymore when the buildingpart gets too easy ( like infinite wood , no worries about food , big army without problems ) because there is no challenge in building and building is like 60 minutes of around 90 minutes of the whole gametime so quite a big part . You ever cheated in a game like give you infinite money in Sims or something comparable ? It might be funny in the first minutes but soon it gets boring because you can´t archieve something special anymore.

Ok another example : You have some students in school playing basketball against each other and two top teams in the NBA playing against each other . Its like in both cases both teams have the same opportunities to win , so it must be the same right? Nah really if you would compare those games you would see a clear difference espeacially regarding the competence and the need for skills. Those NBA team players will keep playing basketball because everyday they get an other challenge and like that keep their interests in the game. In school one or two sportlessons of basketball might be nice but then you´ll get sick of it because it won´t give you big challenges , so you ask your teachers to play something else in the next lessons to get a new game with some new challenges.
And the same applies to KaM . In easy games you can do everything you want and you´ll be fine. You won´t have any challenges so the game will get boring. In hard games you will always get new challenges . For example every game there can be new gaps in your town which could mess up your town and you need to fix them. Like that you can never say what awaits you in the next game because the building gives new traps and people might mess up or can play very good . Thats why i play golden cliffs very often and never get sick of it because its a hard map and it is different every single game. Even today i can say that there are still some locs on golden , which are quite challenging for me and even on the locs that i know very good i might still step into some traps. This hard map keeps challenging me and like that the building is really much fun for me and the time after pt is even more interesting because you never know how your enemy performed.
In easy games only a really few things are challenging and you know that everyone will have a good army after pt so there aren´t any surprises.

So really : easy vs easy and hard vs hard are not the same



Ohhhhh, i have the perfect example for you . Ever played Border Rivers? That map is the best map to explain that big armys are not good after pt. That map has just no space for big armys. It´s like whoever will attack will take big losses because the enemy big army is waiting at their entrance and can just shoot at you while the frontline is fighting at 10-15 tiles or so . And all the rest of your army is piling behind that frontline, just waiting to get killed by the defender . Now you maybe say " Hey but with more army you can make more manouvers because you have more troops to use! ". Well first there has to be space for manouvers. Without space its just a big pileup-fight like on border rivers. And second how you want to flank succesfully if the enemy just has like 50 troops left to defend against your flank. Also flanking is most usefull in the moment where you can surprise your enemy with that flanking . Now try to flank with a dangerous amount of units ( If everyone has like 100+ units it have to be like 20 or so to be a kind of a threat ) without being detected. It will be just always a big fight where 2 armys just charge eachother without any chances of flanking. So again there is no challenge in fighting because you can´t really do much to improove your attack.
With smaller armys there are much more possibilities and things you have to watch for. Even small things can really get to your disadvantage . One knight flanking you can be really gg sometimes because you dont have enough soldiers to protect your rangeunits or you didn´t pay enough attention. Now if you caught this knight after he killed some units it might be ok with the large armys but with the small armys it can be very devastating for you because every unit counts. Also flanking with 10 militia can be very good because the other guy has to send meleeunits to protect that flank against the militia while he normally badly needs those troops to hold the frontline.
There won´t be big pileups with troops and like that every unit counts, every decision has to be made wisely and mistakes can mess the fight much more up as they could in fights with large armys.
So again here is the challange which makes playing with small armys much more interesting.
And regarding the way you got the large army or good city is also very important.
It´s exampletime again : You want to bake a pizza. Now you´ve got 2 options : You get a recipe and gather all the ingredients and make the pizza yourself or you just go buy a frozen pizza from the supermarket and put it into the oven.
The selfmade pizza was quite a hard job and demanded some skills from you . But somehow the pizza was just ok. The frozen Pizza needed no skills ( maybe using the oven ) and was also ok but maybe also better than the selfmade one.
So now the question : What are you prouder of ? The frozen pizza or the selfmade one ? And which one made more fun to do ?
The answer is quite obvious . Ofcourse you are prouder of the selfmade one even though it wasn´t as good but it was fun to make the pizza. The frozen pizza was just easy and didn´t demand anything from you. You hadn´t any fun at making it ( maybe you watched a funny clip on youtube while you were waiting but that doesn´t count ) .
This example might be a bit extreme but it fits. You can make big armys but if you had no challenge at making them where was the fun there? Better have a smaller army while having a challenge making it ( making a large army with big challenge is even more fun ) . So this is why big armys and big citys are bad when you have no challenge building them and with the easy unbalanced maps at the moment there won´t be that challenge.

I like your kind
Do you ever hear that game has nothing to do with real life?
If you want harder map then play harder map its simple as it is.
Why other players have to do same as you?
There is no need to edit old maps for your style.
Make new maps for hardcore players or edit old ones for special version for hardcore players. But don`t ask now remake all maps coz its too easy for you.
If you don`t see that there is not just good players who now need hardcore maps there is still new players who are not yet that good. There is so many reasons why maps should stay as it is. What if in futures update will need remake maps again and again... Need to adapt not remake all what you don`t like.

I am sure that devs can make somethig like that:
Building Map
HC Building Map
Fight Map
Co_operative map
Save game map

Did you ever hear that comparisons and examples can help to understand things better?
I never said that other players have to do the same as me . I speak only for me and some people who share my oppinion . Other people can play as they want.
And how should we play harder maps if there are no harder maps now? In fact it isn´t as simple as it is .
Well first there are only three maps which should stay with the old build-order imo : Golden Cliffs , Majestic Waters and Border Rivers . Not all !
And also the original versions are the "hardcore" versions how you call them. We just want them to stay as they were created because they need that buildorder . And ofcourse other players can play the new version with the new buildorder.
We just want to have the possibility to play those maps as they were created ( We can use the scripted version. ) .
Noone want to remake all maps and noone said it. There are just some ( 3-5 ) maps which need to be rebalanced because of the new changes on which everyone except you here can agree.
As i said... maps can stay like they are now to be fitting for new players , i just want to have some optional versions of those maps with the original buildorder so me and other people who like the original version can play that one.
If new gamechanging updates come and the maps wouldn´t adjust then there would be probably a lot of imbalanced maps out there and on this i think most people here can agree . So in future maps will need to be remade again and again.
And concerning the part in your quote after " ... " i can just say that i couldn´t understand anything at all... maybe if you wanted to say that i want to remake every map that i don´t like then i can tell you that im not asking for remakes of those maps because i just don´t like them but because i want to set the balance as it was meant by the mapcreator ( and balance means balance between locs and the planned dificulty by the mapmaker ) .


So please do me a favor and read my posts more accurately and then you will see about what im writing because im trying to explain the side of the "hardcore-players" by also trying to find solutions for both veterans and beginners.
You are writing about me having oppinions that i never had... that is most of the time a sign of a lack of arguments.

I think no one yet wrote about it. Open any map and try to count fish.

Thanks for the report. It already been reported and fixed, the map editor wasn't counting fish properly.

@Pizza: You was very convincing with last few posts. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

So it looks like there's more to the building order than it seems. Certain maps (CR, GC, BR) became a de-facto standard for skirmish battles (like a DeDust for CS or a Deck17 for UT). Any change to those is greatly undesirable. Looks like we can apply new build order en mass, but provide dynamic script templates for mapmakers to keep special maps as they were.