Re: [Human-beings-discuss] trying to move on

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

"Régis Guinvarc'h" <address@hidden> writes:

> > The background idea is rather good but I always thought it would
> > be more of a pain than a really enjoyable feature of the game.
> > Maybe the strategy of attacking the fuel transports would be a
> > plus, yes. Maybe you're right after all.
> 
> on the same topic, there are the roads/railroads: we should find a way to 
> give 
> them many more importance than they have in this kind of game, so that you 
> really need to control them to move. Something like big unit *cannot* go off 
> the road, only walking unit can. Actually, this is like giving more 
> importance to the terrain.

i like the idea, though not entirely like that: in real-life the
tanks can move on all the terrains, so why not keeping it
civ-like, e.g. the speed of the unit is multiplied by 3 for
roads, 10 for railroads (for example)?

also, let's not forget that doing like you suggest would IMHO
impair much the starcraft-like fights because one would need to
build roads dedicating to the attacks, so it would be very long
just for one attack...

of course, whatever decision is made, these rules could be
added/removed once a first "prototype" game will appear. I think
it's very hard to guess the actual "scope" of this kind of rule
when not trying it with the real game.

[...]

> > Anyone else has an opinion on that topic?
> 
> one thing (from civ3): goods that were strategic ones in the beginning of the 
> game become common as time is passing. Thus, complex units do need many 
> different goods, but some of them are no longer of strategic types. So only 
> few of these goods are really sensitive for the complex unit.

Hum, can you name these goods?


-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/