Some more ideas for how to spend your hard earned cash on.

Req worries that 4 tiers of 10% bonus-to-movement is too dangerous. And it'd make the tech page a bit messy.
Personally, I think it's a little risky too. But it would be nice and use lots of turns/cash up.

So...'selling' it to him...or, if you feel that way, trying to stop it dead, I need some justified feedback to either get Req to do this, or to not bother. At all.

Edit: Now that I think about it, it ties in with Req's wish to have more comabt techs. Most troops generally only do a few things - damage, bleed (att:def), move, be made and some have range. So this idea is pretty good from that angle, at least.

Last Edited : Friday, 7 January 2005 - 02:14

It is my opinion that the current messiness of the techs is only because of their being not in one single comprehensive format.

All techs should be divided to categories, whether under their origin building (Blacksmith, military academy, etc..) or under function (transport, war, trade, etc..). and then for each type/category will stand the four level of advancement. All costs must be equal at each level. So an Advanced Level Trade will cost as much as Advanced Level Weapons and Expert Level Training will cost as much as Expert Level Transport(Movement).

Thus, one player might invest all his resources in transport and movement, having fast runners and steel horse shoes to make his troops fast, yet another player will invest in refined blacksmiths making steel weapons of fearsome sharpness.

Exactly my line of thinking

The messiness is just a worry of too much on one page, at one time

The excess moves being dangerous...well, we used to have 18 move scouts. And then the 16 was dropped too. So I suppose that's why he's a bit worried. Then again, it's primarily a combat tehc, you'll need to get it for 2 terrains, typically, for it to REALLY work in any war - and it'll be more of a late game thing. So the risk of an immediate rush by 18 move scouts is off

I disagree on making them the same cost.

For example, the movement techs (advanced movement) are not worth as much as teching up to advanced troops, or as taxes (or tax reform - whichever one you consider 'advanced' taxes). Expert weapons is not nearly as important as expert troops (or tax reform). On top of that you have multiple movement techs, multiple barracks to upgrade to expert (or master) troops, etc.

Fanatic, you're wrong.

Being able to move at 120 or 150% might be worth far more than Expert troops. Getting to mines and resource piles first would make all the difference and allow the player with faster movement to also upgrade to Expert troops. So by the time one player chose to upgrade to Expert Troops, the one who chose Advanced travel got faster movement AND Expert troops.

Also, we are NOT discussing changes to the current system. We are suggesting views for the next version and you will find that a systematic, comprehensive approach makes it easier to manage, will attract more people and allow greater versatility in strategy!




(wow, it felt so good saying "Fanatic you are wrong!" doesn't happen very often )

"Fanatic, you're wrong. " - Rog

No, I'm not

Under the current system you will never have enough time to get the extra movement techs to beat me to resources that I would normally lay claim to anyway. So the best you could do with your fancy movement techs is make it so I have to chase you all the way back to your castle before I kill your basic troops. (rather than me killing them in the field and then marching on your castle).

Under the new system we don't have any real details as to how resources are going to work yet, so that cannot be commented on as to whether an equal cost system would be valid or not. Given the proposed images so far though, even with movement techs I will still lay claim to my surrounding six hexes before your troops can even reach them.

Last Edited : Friday, 7 January 2005 - 15:12

Awfully confident aren't you?!

You know what we do with Fanatics here? We shave their backsides, glaze it with honey and lock them in a sealed room full of African Killer Bees. That'll add 250% to your movement rate yet much reduce your 'basic troop killing' capacity

I still think you're wrong. Seriously. And not because of the different benefits arising from better movement Vs better troops. What I meant was that the current costs system seems slightly all-over-the-place. Maybe streamlining it a bit will make it more comprehensive and will allow a more determined strategy in ways of making a choice. I wasn't necessarily concentrating on movement and troops. Just streamlining the expenses.

Last Edited : Friday, 7 January 2005 - 14:20

yes, common costs would suggest common tech values.
and that is not the case.

looking at the techs, its clear that some techs are worth alot more than others. so making their cost based on their level rather than their actual worth doesnt sound right to me.

unless we split all techs so that each level has equal value techs, i cant see it working.


the issue of THIS thread is whether 4 levels of movement tech is ok. currently you can get +10% movement on a terrain.
With another 2-3 levels, this means you could get up to +40% movement. Thats +4 spaces per turn for a 10 movement troop.

O great and omnipotent Requiem
better movement is absolutely needed its smthg about which im writing in last month few times, cavalry units with more movements will give more maneuver to fights, and on greater distances in new zones maps, improves logistic

I think, the common complaint seems to be that long trips are taking MUCH too long. These techs would certainly make the overall trip between territories shorter, without creating units that can completely sprint around someone's army

This probably is not applicable to the new version but I have always thought locations of resources and "bonus piles" should be randomized.
Also with all the new tech we might want longer games.

TR

Actually, the idea was largely to give out enough tech to keep folks busy till game's end...i.e. you can DO anything, just not EVERYTHING... (Moo3 quote, I believe - or close)