 |
| |
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
I have admittedly not read much of anything on this game, But the only change or new addition I really desire in 'standard' RTS games is a real diplomacy system - like the kind you would find in Civilization or Alpha Centauri. Trading would be nice, aswell. But I'd rather not see something as simple as giving tributes and sending a caravan unit to their marketplace, ect...
Maybe being able to negotiate treaties where you will give peace (or other resources) in exhange for 5% of all the gold they collect, for example
I would also like to have the option for tech stagnation (and maybe also an increase in resources required to construct buildings and units) to stretch out a game - provided, of course, that the game would allow this to still be fun.
Another thing which is really important to me is that there should be an infinate supply of resources on the map - but still a requirement to expand your 'country'. A resource system similiar to Total Anhilation minus the generators which can be put anywhere on the map would be nice.
Lastly, Unit AI is extremely important. I don't want to have to baby sit every single one of my units all the time, and I don't want to have to always give specific targets to attack. Alot of RTS games really suffer in this department, and can make playing the game a really frustrating experience. But hopefully, you don't need to be told this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Apocalypse
|
 |
Lexington, VA: College - Houston, TX: Home
Aug 2005
time: 00:18
|
|
I'd like files that can be editted easily...continue the replay value that has been present in your last two games.
Last edited by Apocalypse on 06-03-2002 at 09:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:18
|
|
Hi Brian,
I really want to help you with this game, it's good to know that there are people that want to have a go at the genre; but its bad to know most of those people don't strive for the best. Ensemble Studio's did extremely well and still are. But I feel that you are attempting a "Empire Earth" game, but with the fun of AOE/K. The thing about Empire Earth is that its too fast, too much war, it's like the entire game is just one big battle throughout history, there's no story, there's no depth, it's quite flat; and its interface feels flimsy. I mean, it's a great interface and all, but it's difficult to control, to layout your buildings, to see everything, it's annoying having to move from one place to another in split seconds.
The good things about TBS games is that it has stability in the interface area, you don't have to be quick, you *can* stop, think and act. In RTS it's just act.
The bad thing about TBS is that it can get long and boring, the bad thing about RTS is that it can get continous. You need to blend the two together, find a median, so that people feel that it's not going too fast in all areas so that the game is all most over and you've almost done everything the game has to offer, yet make it fast so that it's fun to watch and play.
I notice you have used the idea of cities, GREAT!!!!!! This is something I would try to make in a game of AOE, I would set up a few towns and one massive town (like London), so that it's much like real life. But it doesn't seem to work well. If you are wanting to make these cities a big part of the game, I would try to keep each of the buildings a PART OF the center (those houses, I take it are the center). So for example, if you were to build your first city, and called it London, then built a barracks near London, then those barracks would belong to London and so forth. And this way the cities can be self supporting. Also by doing it like this, you can use trade between your own cities and allied cities. So lets say Dover was settled near a lot of stone, but has no iron, so you would get London to send iron in trade of stone from Dover and this way each city can now build what those resources required.
A lot of trading games (like Trade Empires) are complicated, because you have to set these things up and it gets messy. So I would keep this sort of thing very simple and nothing really goes wrong (except sabotage? bandits?).
So when setting up trade routes, the game could pause maybe, and this gives you time to set things up in a TBS type of mode, and so this way you don't get frustrated when you are being attacked by thousands of men when you're trying to set a trade route up!
The war system is fine with me, make it fast, active, bloody and massive. But when it comes to the modern army of today, I think the soldiers could use the surrounding enviroment, so they hide behind tree's and buildings, and your men will do the same when you are attacking or defending. - ok could be hard to implement, but would be bloody wicked if it was in.
My next suggestion is to extend the technology system. I don't know what you have, but I don't like the idea of clicking a button to discover something.
I think that discoveries need reason behind them. This could be difficult to implement aswell, but would be a change in the way ppl make games that have a tech tree in them.
Here's the story:
You can't just know that planting a apple seed will grow a apple tree. You would have to have worked with apple tree's a long time to discover it. You see where I am getting at?
So lets say its the beginning of the game, we get a bunch of idiots to pick berries off the bush, and one fine day, one of the idiots discovers that if he puts a berry seed in the ground, he will get a new berry bush! And lo and behold, you now know how to make more berry bushes to increase your food! This is just an example, I am not suggesting you actually do this berry bush growth thing. 
Another example:
Why do you build clubmen, when there's no reason to? What should happen at the beginning of the game, is that an animal (not another civ player) attacks your little puny pathetic village, but one of your men/women attacks the animals and wins (must win everytime). You now have a man/woman who can fight and he is your villages first fighter. When you get your first fighter, you will have the option to build a barracks, and the more fighters you have OR the more they fight, the more they will learn how to fight better, so they will use stones, clubs, etc.
Eventually, all these 'reasons' stop when you can build a university. I think universities appeared quite early so you wouldn't have to have this 'reason system' too long, but it would make more sense and the game more interesting rather than push button to activate. 
Territory (policital borders), so if an enemy crosses onto your territory, YOU WILL KNOW ABOUT IT and this gives you a chance to get ready for a fight and makes the game more interesting.
If it's not possible to have extremely large maps (capabale of supporting a earth sized map that fits at least 2 cities on England), then would it be possible to have multiple maps?
So on the arial view of the world map, you have the option of seeing all maps, or the map that you are viewing on, and if you wanted to see another part of the entire world, then you would simply click there. I am getting way out of league here, but these sorts of things would make these games huge and put 5 gold stars on them.
good luck!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ColdFever
|
 |
Luebeck, Germany
Sep 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
Okay, guys, go for it! Remember ... it's about human history |
You asked for it, here it comes:
My personal wish would be, that the game concludes a form of "social behavior" as it was first roughly implemented in Alpha Centauri. Here the leaders had sympathies and antipathies for each other depending on their belief. This existence of human values did influence the diplomacy. I loved that kind of human-like behavior and am missing it in most of the current games.
I suggest to build on that and perhaps even go a step further: how about, if the people of a nation, in our term "units", also would develop a social behavior? In most of the games a player just sets the desired parameters like a god and the people follow like slaves, even in modern times. Perhaps it would be interesting to play a more realistic game, where the player still gives concrete commands like "build a university" or "build an army", but as there is something like "social resonance", the targets the player sets are resulting in a preference of certain kinds of people, for example scientific people or military people while others may be suppressed, for example religious people. This preference then is forming a unique society, that may be strong in one aspect, but weak in another.
And as some forms of societies can mean suppression of human desires, if crucial parameters are getting to hard on the people, some precious units might even like to leave the county to look for a another one that might better suit their desires (examples: history of the New World (Mayflower) or Einstein leaving Nazi Germany).
So I suggest to implement a kind of "people AI = unit AI" where the player is faced with a unique behavior and intelligence of his units.
With a concept like this a game would even run "faster", because the "smart" units would have an own "living" and do what they could do best. I heard about the new "smart worker" who looks for effective work. There also could be "smart settlers" who look for the best place to found a town, or "smart soldiers" who develop own strategies to attack and retreat (when do I finally see a military unit flee in panic?)
There even could be "smart geniuses" or " smart revolutionaries" who influence the society in a way not foreseen be the player (kinds of "Spartakus" or "Ghandi" who may release new ideas so that the people might even follow other ideas and not the ones of the ruler anymore).
In a game written in 2010 the player probably plays with "virtual human units" that do behave like humans. Wouldn't it be nice, if RoN could be the first modest (cpu limited) step into this direction?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Rusty Gamer
|
 |
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 17:18
|
|
This is an idea that just came to me and I don't know of it specifically being implemented in a game like this.
I'm not sure how you are going to have citizen growth but I assume (or hope) it will be natural growth rather than press for a citizen on the town hall. In other words, citizens would be a resource pool which would grow over time through reproduction, immigration etc from which you would use to create units.
The idea is for this pool of citizens to grow, you need to build a city that would encourage that growth, make them happy etc.
The twist here is that if another civilization is building a civlization with better living conditions, many citizens will desert yours or emmigrate to that one and vice-versa. In other words, you would be competing for citizens, they would be like a limited resource. Giving them places to live (houses) would only be allowing room for growth, you would still have to find ways for them to want to stay and you could do things to encourage the birth rate etc.
There wouldn't be the potential for immigration/emmigration until you encounted another civlization and only thn, as the citizens weigh up the pros and cons will they begin to make choices.
Having to have citizens via a growth rate before you can build units from them (even peasants) would certainly forestall a "unit rush" problem.
Last edited by The Rusty Gamer on 06-03-2002 at 06:11
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Rusty Gamer
|
|
Christchurch, New Zealand
Apr 1999
time: 17:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sn00py
My next suggestion is to extend the technology system. I don't know what you have, but I don't like the idea of clicking a button to discover something.
I think that discoveries need reason behind them. This could be difficult to implement aswell, but would be a change in the way ppl make games that have a tech tree in them.
Here's the story:
You can't just know that planting a apple seed will grow a apple tree. You would have to have worked with apple tree's a long time to discover it. You see where I am getting at?
So lets say its the beginning of the game, we get a bunch of idiots to pick berries off the bush, and one fine day, one of the idiots discovers that if he puts a berry seed in the ground, he will get a new berry bush! And lo and behold, you now know how to make more berry bushes to increase your food! This is just an example, I am not suggesting you actually do this berry bush growth thing.
Another example:
Why do you build clubmen, when there's no reason to? What should happen at the beginning of the game, is that an animal (not another civ player) attacks your little puny pathetic village, but one of your men/women attacks the animals and wins (must win everytime). You now have a man/woman who can fight and he is your villages first fighter. When you get your first fighter, you will have the option to build a barracks, and the more fighters you have OR the more they fight, the more they will learn how to fight better, so they will use stones, clubs, etc.
Eventually, all these 'reasons' stop when you can build a university. I think universities appeared quite early so you wouldn't have to have this 'reason system' too long, but it would make more sense and the game more interesting rather than push button to activate.
|
I'd like to take this a step further. The whole technological shape of your civilization could occur as a result of your experiential encounters, particularly the early ones which would effect your civ's whole way of thinking and devlopment through the ages. So one civ's early experiences could lead to quite a different outcome from another's, sort of giving it a tunnel-vision way of thinking early on that would shut out other trains of thought. This is more realistically the way different cultures were shaped in the real world. It is only with globalisation that we have become more alike and yet still we are very different.
Suppose you just start with a peasant. He starts exploring. Depending on what he encounters first will depend on what to experiment with. So, he might first discover some stones, so he starts mining the stones and putting them in a little pile and then it occurs to him to build some sort of storage pit out of stone. However, if he encounters trees first and starts chopping them, it will occur to him to build a storage pit out of wood instead. Or if a mixture of stone and wood are being collected, the storage pit may compose a combination of the two. In other words, the composition of buildings, the shape and size of them, everything will depend on experimentation. So different civilizations could end up looking very different with different cost balances of resources, strength (HP points) etc.
However, maybe this is too radical and would be better used for a different game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dale
|
 |
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:18
|
|
One thing I'd love to see is REAL unit grouping/formations.
- Anchient eras: not much grouping or formations. Mostly people acted as individuals.
- Medieval eras: catapults/trebs way out back, bowmen middle, infantry centre, cavalry flanks. And their formation is in lines.
- Renais eras: similar to Med where artillery is at the back, and riflemen at the front in ranks with cavalry on the flanks.
- Modern eras: corps running around where it's possible to have artillery miles back, infantry skirmaging and tanks blitzkreiging around the flanks.
This type of formations would be awesome! Also, if possible have some standard tactics that your battlefield generals can automatically order. IE: click a button and suddnely the riflemen retreat under an arty barrage, the enemy advances seeking the ground, and the cavalry out-flank to cut up the reserves. All this as one order.
Also, when armies are marching around the map, make them march in some semblance of formations!
Oh, and you must be able to group and store armies on quick-keys (like command & conquor)
Is this too much? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
BR:
First, it's GREAT to finally know what you guys have been working on! I had planned to drop by the COEX (cool place, eh?) here in Korea to hear your keynote speech and to try to trick you into revealing some of these details earlier, but life just got in the way. =) I wish you the absolute best of luck with RoN. I enjoyed watching your DaRq games way back when. To this day, you were one of very few gamers I EVER saw actually use tactics like gathering relics and running your troops back to get healed, etc. Anyway...
My most pressing idea at the moment is, I think, one that could profoundly change the pace of the game for the better and help make RoN actually open to more strategic possibility for the cross-over TBS players:
Eliminate peasants.
Yes. I know. Sounds crazy. But hold on.
As with Disciples 2 (outstanding game!), you should instead employ the use of 'planting rods' that claim territory. These rods (or outposts or whatever) can be destroyed, of course, so must be defended constantly. Now, any resources in your claimed area that ALSO have the requisite building near the resource will automatically generate the resource. End of story. Faster gathering will depend on improved tech (thus more strategy) instead of pumping out more villies. Multiple resource buildings sharing the same radius should NOT generate more resources. This will encourage expansion and more map awareness instead of simply hording a section of the map with mass vills.
Other benefits would be clear: THE single most demanding aspect of the recent slew of RTS games is the villies that gather paradigm. Not only does this aspect reward the click-festers, it also makes for some absolutely tedious middle and end-games that result in people running villies all over the map, etc.
In this system, you could set the 'land claimed victory percentage' to anything you want so that a person who claims, say, 70% of the land with the rods simply wins. He need not kill all enemy villies or towns or anything else. It would be up to the enemy to attack the rods. In other words, turtles can't win here. They'd HAVE to get out and, at minimum, keep the enemy from gaining his land percentage.
Also, any land that you are gathering resources from that loses its rod-radius would no longer produce resources for you. This, IMO, would open a LOT more strategic opportunities at a fraction of the micro-management investment than producing and roping villies all over the place.
Finally, not having to worry about 50-100+ villies will free the gamer from tons of tedium and thereby allow him to focus on tech progression decisions and better battle plans.
Please, please, please consider this change. I honestly think it is one thing that would move RoN into a very nice position between RTS click-fests and honest-to-goodness strategy gaming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
m_m_x
|
 |
Israel
Jan 1970
time: 07:18
|
|
hi Brian
my bizarre ideas are:
units:
I would like to have a little hero unit that will represent me (with my name on it),like in "AOK" when u have the king there,and like stronghold but I want this unit to have bigger part in the game like:
-at first it will be nice if I could built my unit from scratch like how it looks,what special abilities he has,its voice.
I would like to go on with that unit and have an RPG element of experience points and levels i go up with it.
it would be nice to have mini battles with that hero units with the enemy hero unit to solve issues without big scale wars, or just to make my name well known threw out the globe that i defeated "Brian leader" in a sward fighting and make my citizens happy (like sward fighting or shooting fighting)..
-another thing i would like to see are-celebrity units
let me explain:units that do special things like surviving a long hard combat or are the first to discover new civilization get a celebrity status. this status makes other people happy,like moving this kind of unit into a city will raise its happiness.
-take over at enemy units take over on cannons tanks and other vehicles could be nice.
-be able to do spy/terror acts like assassination,kidnapping celebrity(special) units(will make the enemy citizens unhappy).
combat:
-creating and saving combat doctrines(it would be nice to name that moves as i wish)-like make a special combat move of 3 tanks going from the south to attack x facility while the main force will wait x time and attack from the north y facility and smaller infantry force wait till main force destroy the facility and attack form the west in order to destroy/kidnap their leader-i could save that move and name it like "mmx kidnap doctrine" and commit it by a simple click button.-it would be nice to trade war doctrine with other players in multiplying.
-create and finance a little army which will be unidentified and could attack which enemy i choose and make terror acts.
those groups will be neutral and have their own base and will be controlled by the player. it will lunch attacks on other civilizations without you getting involved into a full scale war.
economy:
-be able to sell army units to other civs
-pirating ships,trade convoys would be nice.
-giving lawns and taking lawns from other civs.
interface and graphics:
-its would be nice to see rods between cities to get the feel that there is an empire im controlling.
-cities have to be much bigger and massive visually then other special building that should be a lot smaller.
-i really like to see some animals,fish,and birds on the map.
-it would be nice to have an option to take notes in game of things i want to take care of.
multiplying:
-an humiliating option:
let me explain-i would like to have an option to choose from (a menu) how to humiliate my rivals after wining (at the end of the game,in interactive way for x period of time:
-throwing eggs on the rivals hero unit,see the unit cry's and scream after every egg i hit.
-kicking/slapping him x times while his screaming.
-make him a slave-do things that i told him like
jump on one leg screaming i am a donkeys a..
-make him wear woman clothes.
-make him eat gross stuff
-hang him
-burn him
-shoot him with a shooting squad.
-plying the next game wearing a ti shirt with the word looser on it and when he enters a city of his own there is a sound of people laughing... 
oh man that would be so satisfy to humiliate the losers after a good multiplying game. the looser must stay on line to see himself humiliate!!!-he can choose not to get humiliate and pay x a mount of money in the next game or start the next game with a penalty that he choose (less units,less something..)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Reynolds
Thanks, guys--keep 'em coming! A number of you will already be happy.
Brian |
Come on Mr. Reynolds, you are playing with us, aren't you? With a game quite developed you don't need "general" suggestion, only focused idea on the line of the already developed main game design.
As your last comment seems to reveal to me, you already have most game part in place, and are mostly looking for raising players interest. 
You are a professional, and already know lot of CTPII/CIV III fans suggestion (included "The List" made from many Apolytoner). You surely know some suggestion will nicely match your game, and will be an easy prize to let people believe they make a great part in game development.
Now, if you really want help, I suppose you should ask for more specific area: tell us some general design background and many of us will be proud and happy to fill any gap with so many game features that the "next Yin" will need a dedicated, large Hard disk just to store the whole summary 
Best regards from the "old" Admiral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pg
|
|
eliminating peasants/settlers(and the like) would go along with what i'd like to see. i think a game with a simulation element where you can directly and indirect influence but not control like a god is interesting. two other small ideas, maybe combat/war in a different interface(think games like conquest of the new world or ogre battle for snes/n64). obviously, it'd have to be a lot different, but i don't like the clickfest of rts, and would prefer a innovative, and unique system which is more tactical/stragetic. second idea, which is already used in many games - the ability to record demos of players matches in single/multi games(like aoe2/starcraft/quake).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Someone in here already mention a commander type unit should be put into the game and I was going to add some ideas on top of that. I would like to see a unit that you could make that you can group units with. For land units the unit could be a general, for sea units flagship of an adimaral, for air units not sure but sometype of units along the same lines as the other two. When you group the units together you can use the general to issue orders to all of the units that are grouped with the general. Also as was already stated the general could give attack bonus to the units grouped with it. I would also be good if a large number of units be grouped with the general type unit. This way we could controll large number of units easly and give the general unit smart AI were it will select targets for its units to attack.
I would like to see that units would need supplies as well, and have a unit that can filled up with supplies and supplies units within a given range. A feature on this unit were you can have it go back to base fill back up with supplies and return to the area were it was before would be nice. And having units already be able to carry supplies would be a good idea as well. I have seen this in other rts games and that is what I am basing it on, and it works quit well in the games I play.
I would also like the ablilty to give allies units. I wish so much that Civ3 had it in the game. And a deploymicy system similar to civ2 and civ3 would be great. And be able to trade or sell your cities or terrority with other players. Anther thing that would be nice is a feature were you could claim a certain peice of land as part of our own empire, similar to what the early explores often did in the New World for the countries they came form. That way if you see a nice spot of land that is good to settle or has a resouce that you need you could claim the land and settle sortly there after. Although I would say that there should be a time limit on how long the claimed land would be ours and limt on how much land you can claim, so players dont abuse it and claim large tracks of land for the whole game and limit the other players to a small area.
I would say you could take the claimed land with millitary units, but would start a war with the person who has claimed it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
the elimanate peasants idea is interesting and i take it note of it as it relates to some ideas i am thinking about -what is the nature of cities in a game like this- how abstract or granular should the city model be.
Let me give 3 examples - civ2, AOE, Caesar3.
A civ2 city is an abstraction, but is also an integrated whole. The efficiency of resource collection in a civ2 city depends on happiness, city improvements and land improvements. Happiness is dependent on city improvements, and extent of trade. Value of city improvements depends on population size, resources, trade, etc. All interconnected, giving cities unique "personalities" as any expereinced civ2 player can tell you. Yet highly abstract - a market stands for the one market in size one city, or the entire local commercial network in sixe 15 city, etc. Peasants are just the one 25 or so workers who stay and do what you want. All the internal transactions - the steps in production, in internal distribution, etc are completely abstracted out.
An AOE city is granular - you actually see peasants collecting wood, building buildings, etc. On the other hand it is not an integral city. there is no "happiness" All collected resources go into a central pool, and can be drawn on throughout the empire, with no need for transport, so there is no particuar reason to locate buildings in any particular relationship to one another. You have a lot of buildings, and resource collection activities (as in other RTS games) but no cities.
In a city builder like C3, you have both granularity and an integral city. Yes you see the citizens movin around in their activities, but you also have all the production and distribution links modeled, and happiness as well. Of course you also have to micromanage to no end, even the exact street layout for effiency, but then thats the point of a city builder, isnt it. For reasons of both micromanagment and computer resources this doesnt work with multiple cities. An empire builder must be more abstract, at least past a certain point.
which leads to the issues of different ages and stages of development- for a neolithic settlement it would be nice to see the actual movement of villagers, since the actual detailed deployment of such should effect the success of the settlement. A bronxe age civ with several cities, should perhaps be more abstract, with city and regional layouts still mattering, but without following individual villagers - would a bronze age king of a multi city state really micromanage things to that level? An iron age empire should be made up of something more or less like civ2 cities, or imperialism (or EU?) provinces. Perhaps at some point with even less micromanagement.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jeje2
|
 |
Espoo, Finland
Apr 1999
time: 07:18
|
|
Yin: Your idea sounds good. Would certainly reduce the number of people running around.
Then to some small desires I can think of right now
- In the endgame I would like to see the whole map - come on spying satellits exist. (Maen the map structure & buildings - not where every unit is)
- In defence hold has to be hold. (In Settlers III I used to buils two lines for defense with swords, spears in first row and arrowmen in backline. Idea was to keep this structure constant, but the sword&spearmen were all the time leaving formation to chase somne ghost. NOT GOOD)
- One or two random events per nation per game. (Like this consept from Europa Universalis, they just have them way too frequently.) The random event can also be something good. Ex. A general has died/ a new one has born, scientific breakthrough...
- Utilize ála SMAC & EU faction settings that affect different aspects of game.
- Have military strategies evolve over time (History has time after time proven that the winner isn't always that side with most men etc.)
- Allow formation of groups (like in EU or Settlers III), but also make it possible to give all types of commands to a group even if only a small number of the group can do it. Ex. A group of ten units, 5 footmen, 4 archers and a catapult. When selecting the group I want to be able to give command to the catapult of bombing somethig. Rest of the units just have to understand that this comand isn't for me.
- If multiple cities make them differ - don't allow all cities do everything. (Utilize the Colonization system, but make wagontrain smarter )
- If you have a campaign (like War&Starcraft or Settlers) mode, please allow the outcome of one affect the next one somehow.
Finally I'm right now a little concerned about the short lenght of a game. (I like somewhat longer ones)
P.S. Brian: I refound your Colonization game - know what, it's really a damm good game. Like the gamesystem a lot, with specialists and every city cann't be producing everything aspects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
Jeje: Thanks for the PM, friend. =) I tried to write you back, but I'm away from my normal computer and, well, the dog ate my reply. LOL! But you are the reason I am here haunting Brian with an idea to remove villies from the game!
Still, I understand people would like to 'see' some kind of economic activity, but I think a few token, automated villies with animated resource buildings would be more than enough. Wow. Just the thought of not micro-ing those villies makes me very excited. And if it reduces system drag, how much better!
In other words, something close the Disciples 2 in terms of 'fewer but more important' units ... only real time and different subject material.
Speaking of, Brian: How about units that upgrade according to two factors -- paid upgrades AND experience upgrades?! Now THAT would also go very far in adding some honest to God strategy to the game if, through careful leadership, you could raise up a handleful of truly battle-hardened death machines instead of just cluster fighting willy-nilly.
Some of the experience modifiers could be:
* Increase morale of nearby units +x%
* Nearby units heal at +x%
* Nearby units attack at +x%
* More hitpoints +x%, etc.
You could click on the individual unit and spend its experience points that have been earned in battle by a simple click on the field you want increased!
This would bring a WHOLE LOT more meaning to keeping your units alive in battle and make the guy who wastes his units even with a superior economy lose to the guy who uses his units more wisely.
Last edited by yin26 on 07-03-2002 at 22:57
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2002 05:49
|