Androidz wrote:Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.
Androidz wrote:EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.
OliverFA wrote:Androidz wrote:Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.
There are different ways to make the tech tree:
1 - Simple line in which you have to research all the techs in order. Starting tech attacks tech 1. Tech 1 attacks Tech 2 and so on.
The goo thing about approach 1 is that it is simple. The bad things is that all players are forced to research in the same order, and gives the players less freedom.
2 - Basic techs can be researched in any order, with advanced techs having basic techs as requisite.
This is what I proposed. I think this is better because gives players more freedom. The bad part is that a player that does not understand the rules can attack (research) many techs at the same time. But I think that if rules were clear enough, taht would not happen.
In my opinion this opens more possiblities. Player A can research the tech to enhance territory bonus while player B can research the tech to enhance continent bonus and player C researchs the "research speed" tech so he can always deploy on the geographical map and not have to deply on the research map. Each player will have a different strategy, which I think is good.
3 - Complex tech tree, with some techs acting as requsites for others and so on. Like a compromise option between 1 and 2.
This could be good, but even if we are creative and use imagination, looks like we are limited in the number of possible techs and don't know if it would work with so few techs.Androidz wrote:EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.
As I said, the concept is borrowed from Civilization like games. And such games always have a Winning tech. That is why I included it. But of course this is an idea and is open to debate about how to make it better and possibly implement it.
I think is nice to have an alternative way to win. If a player sees that he is doomed on the geographical map he could concentrate on research with what he still has and try to win anyway. On the other side, the winning player would have to speed the conquest to win before research is finished, not having the luxury of consolidating what he has already conquered.
Of course, the cost of winning tech would have to be high enough to ensure it is not the easiest way to win the game. So it would have lots lots of neutrals in it.
Thanks for your comments, Androidz
RjBeals wrote:Sounds interesting. I'm not sure you can change the general reinforcements though with the current xml. Like a minimum +3 bonus could not be changed depending on if you own a region or not. I'm not sure though - someone else will have to chime in. As far as the concept - i really like it. Like 2 maps in one. Nice thinking outside the box Oliver. Are you willing to start a map using this concept? I say go for it.
Winged Cat wrote:Why bother with the geographical map? Just go for the winning tech, possibly going through research boosts if those would help more than the effort it takes to get them.
I'd say put the objectives on the geographical map - but then, one could have an 8 player game in which 6 players are reduced to research-only, and the other 2 take a long time to knock each other off the geographical map.
yeti_c wrote:I love the idea - mainly because I love Civilization!!
Research Boost: Yes and No... Autodeploy bonuses are strictly hold territory get auto deploy (at the moment - a few maps are crying out for continent autodeploy)
Minimum reinforcements increase: Can't do subject to Continent/territory ownership - can do as a whole for a map.
Reinforcements per territories held: Can be replicated by creating a lot of continents.
Increase continent bonuses: Yes.
Winning tech: Yes.
t-o-m wrote:Would this be like a tech tree on one part of the map and a land based part the other?
If so i full ysupport this, if there was a little example i think it would explain itself a little better - but i didnt fully read your first post - as i was in a rush.
Users browsing this forum: Blakkrose and 0 guests