castles are too close. You need more than 1 zone between the initial controled zones. I'd say at least 3.

I'm with BA. A little more space would make it so that it's harder to rush early on in the games.

generally a good idea, Req. Although its an idea we already had before. Bringing back the real and original economy is also great!

I dont see a need for town ships, since we have the outposts to secure our land. If we build something within its range and lose this outpost, all buildings can go "unknown" or disappear after a few turns. Or both.

too close? they are further than they are now.
Castles are about 34 hexes apart in that image.
and thats assuming you go in a straight line, thus missing your nearest zone centers.

the next setting which has 2 zone radius around castles means distances is about 45-50 between castles. thats a bit far isnt it? it would take ages just to meet a neighbour let alone further players.

Well yes I did look and the distance is greater than it is now
but I will say for what BA says that some of us like a game with plenty of room including myself
(i.e. not that I actually expect that you would change it).

PS:
I know this will sound funny from someone who likes a faster game but I think we also like to play leisurely as well.

TR

I don't think the distance would be too much of an issue... I think Req could design game maps with 1, 2, and 3 outer layers of zones inbetween castles without changing the version of the game. Whatever map distance becomes most popular would be most used, and could eventually become exclusive if the others don't compete.
Myself, I am betting that the one layer system will win out, or the three... just because there are zones that are equally distant from multiple castles in the odd number of layers (which would result in more conflict = better ). I think just one layer will be the best actually.

Oh, and pinafore, you said you thought the idea of set zones (townships) un-necisary because watchtower building could do the same? well, maybe so, but if Req tried to impliment "auras" of techs over the ground of each watchtower you build, it might get really tricky if you build one overlaping an enemies- or even your own- to see which auras aply where and whatnot. I think it would be easier just to go with the set zone or "township" system, and then zones would never overlap.

by the way, should Req. ever be up for a chalenge, the idea of conflicting auras does sound interesting... building towers that can corrupt enemy influence over zones... sounds cool. hehe... just trying to overwhelm with suggestions.

~Vector

Last Edited : Tuesday, 17 February 2004 - 17:17

This suggestion (although I'm only posting it here) belongs both here and in the thread thats discussing coms vs. watchtowers: I think that watch towers should be a cheap way to see a lot, and thats all. Coms should be used to build things that are not included in the "zone tech tree".
To be more specific, coms could be used to build barracks, walls, market places, etc... wheras the zones would be used for things like troop production (the number of troops per turn, not the ability to output them) and rate of resource production. I don't think Coms should come out of barracks anymore, but out of the zone center... my opinion only.

Also, I don't think that zones should be limmited as strictly "economic" or "military" zones... I think there should be multiple tech trees for the zones, and each tech you research ups the cost of each new tech.
Then if you wanted to, you could make an ultimate zone with lots of techs in each tech tree (only ones I know of so far is economic and military, but there could be more) or you could focus on one tech tree in each zone you have, saving resourses.

I like this idea because if you are attacked where you thought you were safe, you can expend resources to defend a previously only economic zone, but for a price.

This idea just made me think of the option of "droping" techs, and that would be useful if the "each tech costs more and more" idea were implimented... say you have a very defencive zone which is no longer under any threat of being attacked and you want to switch it over into full production... lets say youve got 3 production techs and 10 defencive ones... well, then the next tech you would buy would be modified to cost as your 14th tech, but if you droped your 10 defencive techs, it would count as your 4th.
could be useful... but this could also promote strategic attack and retreats, so as to trick your enemy into droping economic techs and switching (cheaply) into defence mode when you have no real desire to fight at that time. It would just be a neat way to waste your enemies resources.

~Vector

Last Edited : Tuesday, 17 February 2004 - 17:07

well, another idea is that each ZONE has no "visible" township.

instead, at the center, each Zone has a large pile of resources. You then have to capture the Zone (via building an Outpost anywhere in the Zone), and then you can build a resource building to collect those resources.

this is a bit like AOE i guess, but nowhere near as complex and limiting as the previous build-next-to system that caused my mailbox to flood with confused player emails.

it also means each game would be different as each Zone would have a random resource.

any idea when ?
and for those who don't want to do alot of building, thats what battle games r for

the idea of bigger maps is appealing to me... IF movement points were increased also... that would allow a 'roomier' feel, visibility would become a more crucial element to strategy (the enemy could move farther in a day or two) and allow a greater range of 'footwork' strategies...

One thing that cannot be forgotten is that the game must stay simple. Newbies have a hard time understanding the game as it is now. Currently they need to read a lot of text on how to play the game and it takes a lot of patience to do so (patience is not a strong point of mine and I'm a lot more patient then most teens today). I realize this game does not cater to just teens however they do make up a large percentage of the players here. Anyways, by adding more to the game you add more to the already long list of things newbies need to know in order to be successful in this game. However, I am not advocating a "dummying down" of the game. But back to the subject, I agree with Rog on this. If it is at all posible to make this available alongside the current game I say go for it.
TL

well, by too close I mean we need more zones between castles. can you shrink the zones instead of 5 hex sides maybe 4?

yes, the CORE of the game must be simple.
you should be able to start playing and understanding the game fairly easily.
but it must still be difficult to master, with the depth to sustain interest and longterm enjoyment.

that means complex gameplay solutions that require reading pages of instructions wont work. or things that are very fiddly and messy also wont work.

i think the zones are pretty simple, it just depends how its implemented. to just go to a free building resources system is just too complicated and messy for the core system. and the current system is probably a little too basic & limiting.


big, if you make zones only 4 radius, it means there wont be much space to build anything inside, and also build walls,etc around it. infact, if the building in the middle is 2x2, you'll have very little building space per zone.

why more zones? there are already so many there.

looking for more between the castles is what I mean.

i would like to see us set up the initial barracks and stuf inside the castle zone will make it so use of space is good and also make a more defencive strat also maybe give us a specific amount of hexes for castle and make it so we have to start at a point #1 but can use the hexes to develop placement and origional castle schemes and the town ships should act like troops along with other buildings a 8 hex veiw range

It might satisfy some people who think there should be more zones between castles if we have differing amounts of zones between castles. I think a cluster of four castles with only one seperating zone with other clusters of four around it would make for a good game. that way, each castle would have three sides where three castles were close- only one seperating zone to be fought over- and three sides which would have two seperating zones.
~Vector

actually, I drew it out on hex paper, and the cluster idea would work... but it would be unbalanced even with four. a cluster of seven would of course look the best for the map; it would be an even bigger hex... seven small kingdoms close together as a bunch, and then extra zones around each of those so that groups of seven are seperated from other groups of seven. this would increase the number of zones between some castles, but it would leave a middle kingdom that would be at a disadvantage:

__1_______1
2___3___2___3
__4_______4__
5___6___5___6
__7_______7_
___________
______1___
____2___3_ .....etc....


each outer castle would have more zones because there would be extra zone layers between groups of seven, but the number 4 would suffer... it would have fewer... the same number of zones close to it as in Reqs. graph, and others around it would have an advantage.

groups of 4 would still have a small advantage/disadvantage situation... groups of three would be completly equal.

1_2___1_2__1_2___1_2
_3_4___3_4__3_4___3_4
______________________
1_2___1_2__1_2___1_2_
_3_4___3_4__3_4___3_4__ sorta like that...

theres groups of four...
its hard to see it without actual hexes infront of you, but 2's and threes share three sides of there outer zone layer, wheras 1's and 2's only share two sides, getting an advantage.

1_2___3___1_2___3___1_2___3_
_3___1_2___3___1_2___3___1_2
____________________________
1_2___3___1_2___3___1_2___3_
_3___1_2___3___1_2___3___1_2 this is the fairest group
settup if you want an extra zone layer. (if your just reading this, reqs map and comments on the first page of this thread will explain to you what I mean by "zone layer".
I just put this together because it was suggested that perhaps one shared zone layer for everyone like in reqs map was not enough breathing room, and I am trying to provide some alternitives, if they are needed.

Last Edited : Sunday, 22 February 2004 - 01:03

bump.

just to remind ppl of the proposed new map system.

further to this idea....


i dont think each zone will have anything in them.
you would need to BUILD your own buildings in each zone.

however, zones bring in gold income (assumed general populace taxes, etc).

Zones could be made type specific... eg military only zone, or resource only zone, etc.. meaning each zone can only build 1 type of building in it, be it military, resource or tech. just an option of course.


but also, zones ownership will go to whoever moves an army into the zone, OR whoever has an outpost in the Zone.

with ownership of the zone, comes ownership of ANY building inside it. (perhaps some military buildings could also maintain ownership).

so the only way to aquire zones is move armies through it while no enemy armies are inside, or be the first to build an outpost inside it.

Req
believe it our not
one of the most impressive features to me when I first started playing was the the huge beautiful map with the random terrain.
It was very realistic;
but if this segregated terrain makes your task easier in some way, by all means "do what you must do".

TR