|
Post by Vuk on Nov 30, 2006 14:25:41 GMT
How much do you have left on the map? It may be a good idea to have the seven factions all playable (As that would not be that much extra work), and the rest of the map belong to rebels. Include the full map so people will have more to conquer. You can even have the rebels kinda tough. You can release the beta with a minimal number of units (being made easier as there is no cavalry), and concentrate on the few you plan to make, polishing the map, and implementing the new 2-d graphics.
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Nov 30, 2006 21:28:42 GMT
It is true, can we make it??
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Nov 30, 2006 21:36:19 GMT
Problems I see with 0 turn training for peasants: 1. Way too easy population control. Don't want squalor? All you have to do is make a bunch of peasants and make sure you kill them in a turn or two. 2. Way too easy to get a full garrison to make public order go up.
Maybe you should make it so that you can train a few peasant units a turn, but unlimited ammount just seems like it would make the game too easy.
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Nov 30, 2006 22:03:17 GMT
...well, who wants squalor? Besides, they have 0 defence and 2 attack (ranged) so they are rather easy to kill. They break and run easy. Besides, it is realistic. Wouldn't you fight for your cities life if you knew the Mapuche are goin to conquere it and exterminate the population?* Another thing, yes you would have easy garrison, but thats no big deal. It was way unrealist on Vanilla anyways. HAving races and Gladiator games every day and they still revolted? Dont you think that is stupid? No one ever payed their taxes? same thing... Doing this would also add a little variation to the game.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Nov 30, 2006 22:05:52 GMT
It would ruin the management part of the game, in my opinion. If you were decent at management, there is no reason to have daily games and still have revolts.
EDIT: Actually, there is no reason to have daily games at all.
|
|
|
Post by Lignator on Nov 30, 2006 22:51:15 GMT
I think we shouldn't have peasants at all, because that would be ahistorical, IMO. A real commander wouldn't send a bunch of unarmed civilians into war to be slaughered. They would have some kind of weaponry and be trained as skirmishers, archers, or reserves.
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Nov 30, 2006 23:08:33 GMT
What? Many people use the auto manage, the AI would not make peseants.
>:(They did not fight bare handed. And I they had no other alternative, they would.
Antarki says they where armed with cheap slings.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Nov 30, 2006 23:10:05 GMT
The AI sucks at management. Yes, it's true.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Nov 30, 2006 23:11:28 GMT
I think we shouldn't have peasants at all, because that would be ahistorical, IMO. A real commander wouldn't send a bunch of unarmed civilians into war to be slaughered. They would have some kind of weaponry and be trained as skirmishers, archers, or reserves. That would make garrisons too expensive, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Nov 30, 2006 23:24:42 GMT
whats true?
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Nov 30, 2006 23:25:42 GMT
yes, lets do the 0 turns peasent thing
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Nov 30, 2006 23:32:18 GMT
It's true that the AI sucks at management. And I still think we shouldn't do 0 turn peasants.
|
|
|
Post by Vuk on Nov 30, 2006 23:49:00 GMT
One thing I'd like to mention. Saying that the peasants had no/very little training is not true. They had considerably more than most people think and are often misrepresented in games. The important differentiation to make is between peasants, and armed civilans. There is actually a difference.
|
|
|
Post by SSJVegetaTrunks on Dec 1, 2006 0:21:27 GMT
Why do I have -1 Karma?
|
|
|
Post by Murfios on Dec 1, 2006 2:29:48 GMT
picture this: A Peseant is a worker with a dagger An armed civilian is a guy with wepones
no big difference
|
|