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

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

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

[...]

> > 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)?
> 
> not really through a mountain for instance, nor across a river without a 
> bridge. but, yes, i supp it's easier to do

yep, of course agreed for a mountain, river, batiment, and even
forest for mechanical or large units.
 
[...]

> the idea is, instead of beginning from nothing, to have a few things already 
> on the map at the beginning. Say that the story is you become the king of an 
> existing kingdom, so that there are already roads, railroads, existing 
> structures

hum, i don't much like this idea. i prefer civ-like "beginning
with nothing", especially since one of the aim is to develop your
civ.

[...]

> > > 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?
> 
> 
> aluminium, charbon, chevaux, fer, petrole, caoutchou, salpetre, uranium (i 
> haven't tried to translate them ;-). These are the strategic resources. While 
> horses are of a great importance at one time, they become obsolete.

ok.

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