[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [glob2-devel] Discussion moved from the forum
|
From: |
Eli |
|
Subject: |
Re: [glob2-devel] Discussion moved from the forum |
|
Date: |
Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:12:16 -0400 |
On Jul 2, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Andrew Sayers wrote:
<about fruiting>
[instant Inn View is] Unfair. The primary reason for this is that
it can basically force all opponents to take drastic action within
3 minutes or lose.
How is that a problem? Any decent player will guard fruit trees in
case this happens. Even if they had chosen not to use them (say, by
putting a forbidden area around them), all they have to do is make
the trees available and their globs will do the rest.
Ah, but that's the same in every game. "Any decent player will do
this" is the same as "Every player should do this in every game". If
there's a static action that should be done in every game, then that's
a boring task. A boring task is often OK (i.e. building the first few
Inns) but not only it is boring, it is also a very constant task (you
don't choose where to build the trees) and the punishment is too great
for not doing it.
Basically, either you don't guard trees, and you get screwed, or you
do guard trees, and you don't. So you do guard trees. Everyone does in
every game. It's just an extra botheration, not a strategic device.
No, not at all. If/when you happen across a fruit tree in a game (some
maps have fruit, some don't), you have to make a decision about how to
handle it. If it's out of the way, you can choose to ignore it and
nothing much will happen. If it's in your way, you can put a forbidden
area there and they'll ignore it. If you want to pursue a fruit
strategy (or defend against one), you can start collecting. If you
want
to make a trap for other teams, you could put towers near it, etc.
Well, it just seems like it shouldn't be such a black-and-white sort of
choice. Basically you make the choice, and later on you might lose/win
because of it.
Of course, I would find it much more sane if conversions weren't such
an absolute-superiority issue. Essentially the problem is when a
globule thinks "Ooh! Over there's an enemy inn with one of each kind of
fruit in it! That's way better than my side, all we have is a ton of
wheat and a ton of each of two kinds of fruit! Wow, this is such a good
thing that I'd be willing to be pounded to pieces by my own towers to
have it!" Globs shouldn't worship fruit so much.
For sanity, perhaps something like the following should be implemented:
Globs have an amount of desire to go to each inn with an unoccupied
space; This is determined in the following list:
+4 if they can reach the inn before starving to death;
+2 for each kind of fruit in the inn;
-1 for each level of friendly towers that can shoot this unit, if the
inn is an enemy.
Ties are broken first by a preference for friendly inns, second by a
preference for closer inns.
A glob, deciding between an enemy inn with three kinds of fruit in it
that is too far away for it to reach, and a friendly inn with no fruit
on its side of the river, still prefers the enemy inn, and starves to
death in its vain attempt to reach it. However, this does not happen if
there is also a level 2 tower which would shoot the glob who wants to
visit the enemy inn.
A glob would not be stupid enough to convert if it would die instantly,
or if it would starve before getting there, provided you have at least
a comparable amound of fruit in your inn.
<about seige towers, unless you can think of something else to call
them>
Ignore them. They would not cause traffic problems, because the
forbidden areas would not be traversed by anyone else.
What if you have one siege tower going towards a battle and another
coming back, and they both meet in a one-square-wide alleyway? If
you have other globs walking past the alleyway, 18 warriors will be
completely hemmed in.
That doesn't happen because siege towers don't come back from battles.
So what happens to a siege tower when it gets to a battle? It
disappears? It hangs around there?
No idea.
Ah! So how about saying that a war flag (or any building or area,
for that matter) which is over-subscribed should prefer better fed
warriors over hungrier ones? Also, there is a general issue here
that the current system for getting hungry is too static - workers
that never stray more than a few paces from an inn should keep
working until they only have 1 or 2 percent food left, while
warriors should automatically eat before setting off on a long
journey. There is a discussion somewhere in the suggestion forum
about having a movable inn, which would solve the problem too.
Now you mention it, I have found my warriors peeling off in long
battles. Again, I'm tempted to say this is a good thing because it
makes it harder to wipe out an enemy in one fell swoop. That's not
much fun for an attacker, but it means you as a defender might get a
second chance.
It doesn't only mean you get a second chance. It also means that the
defender might destroy half the attacking army by localized
superiority, and then march to their territory and decimate the rest
(if towers are not involved.)
True. But surely a poorly managed attack *should* be disastrous?
That's part of the game's strategy.
Well, yes, but you miss my point, which was that a well managed attack
could also potentially be disasterous.
Also, instead of the siege tower, it does make sense to have a mobile
inn. Here's my take on the situation:
War Wagon building. It's like an mobile, armored Inn which also acts
like a defense tower. It takes 8 wood and 2 stone to build, and stone
to fire. It moves when there's a War Flag, towards the nearest War
Flag. Only warriors use it as an inn, and it can't hold fruit. Its
capacity is 4-6-9, its armor is 8-12-18, and its hitpoints are
200-350-500. It does not have extra stone slots, as the defense tower
does, and it moves at half the speed of a level 1 warrior.
It sounds like your model of combat in Glob2 is that it should be quite
fast and adaptable - that you should be able to push your attack
forward
and all around until your globs actually run out of steam. Is that a
fair assessment?
I'm not sure whether I like that idea yet, but one thing is that model
tends to favour the attacker over the defender, and is likely to make
combat quite quick and decisive. On the one hand, that's good because
you don't get the sort of ragged end to a game you see in many games
(including Glob2 right now), where one side is clearly going to win,
but
it takes them half an hour or more to get there. On the other hand, I
would expect it to be quite depressing when you're doing really well
one
minute, then your base is suddenly overwhelmed and you're dead 5
minutes
later.
Combat in Globulation 2, as in almost every wargame, is highly centered
around localized superiority. Two globs against one, if the fight is
continued, will result in two globs against zero, rather than one glob
against zero.
Assuming both sides have defense towers, an attack gives you a measure
of inferiority: you have your warriors, but the defender has both
warriors and towers. This is further compounded by the enemy's ability
to have warriors emerge instantly from the surrounding buildings, while
your warriors must first travel.
If your warriors compound the problem still further, by having some of
them retreat and others fight, then you're quite at a disadvantage and
may lose the battle even if you have a vastly superior force of
warriors.
Basically what I'm saying is: Have mercy on the attacker!
One way to accomplish this that doesn't involve messing with hunger and
movable buildings, is to make warriors able to upgrade their
armor/hitpoints as well as their attacks. This would prevent late-game
combat from being such a massacre.
Personally, my strategy against the computer for this is to beat
them back until I can reach their resources, then set up inns and
hospitals in their territory, to mount a final attack from.
The AI is pretty weak. I generally do a tower-rush (getting a ton of
level 2 towers around your settlement before the first enemy attack =
ownage :D) and then win however's easiest. That's usually a wheat
genocide (not applicable in the more current version) or converting
the enemies.
- Andrew
_______________________________________________
glob2-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel