natty_dread wrote:I don't really like the idea of all these new game types. Sure, you don't have to play them if you don't want, but all new game type options give more headache to us mapmakers when we have to consider how a certain map would play on this or that game type...
For example, after nuclear spoils were implemented, we now have to consider nuclear games, where any territory is liable to be nuked... which is already causing some headache for mapmakers when they design maps with losing conditions.
What I'm saying is, implementing more game types makes it harder to design maps that function well with any settings. Thus, I personally am really reluctant to see much more game settings, unless they are the kind of settings that do not mess with the existing game dynamics too much.
Instead of new game settings, I'd much rather see new XML features. This way any features a map will have will be designed to work for that map.
For example, instead of this suggestion, we could get new XML tags related to reinforcements: borders that only allow reinforcements but not assaults. Borders that allow assaults but not reinforcements (but through which you can still advance after assault). Territories that automatically shift troops to other territories. Etc. etc. Those kinds of things could provide much more interesting and varied game dynamics than a simple new game option could.
I agree 90% with you. Just having new game typer for the sake of new game types doesn't mean much sense and spoils the work of dedicated mapmakers. The nuclear reinforcements for instance, they are nothing more than a lottery. They add a random element to the game without making it more interesting or more strategic.
But updates like infected neutrals or adjacent attacks, they add a whole new dimension to the game. They make sense .
So, no more pointless game options please. Let's limit to really meaningful game options. And let's get them implemented a day not too far in future please.