1.29 beta - Spell of making balance issue

So, for balance/challenge, I suggest that when a city with a tower(s) is defeated, the towers should be assumed to have been destroyed during the siege, and the conqueror must start from scratch to build his own.

I think this is a good idea, only bad part is the owner will lose out on any 1 or 2 turn chance to regain it.

Good post, at least for making me consider it

(never really liked the spell of making myself)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

Quoting Kongdej,

reply 1

So, for balance/challenge, I suggest that when a city with a tower(s) is defeated, the towers should be assumed to have been destroyed during the siege, and the conqueror must start from scratch to build his own.

I think this is a good idea, only bad part is the owner will lose out on any 1 or 2 turn chance to regain it.

Good post, at least for making me consider it

(never really liked the spell of making myself)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I've put in code so that on a city's conquest that if it has one of the towers it gets destroyed. Will play around with it to see how it feels.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 2

I've put in code so that on a city's conquest that if it has one of the towers it gets destroyed. Will play around with it to see how it feels.

Oh! Let us know!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 2

Quoting Kongdej, reply 1
So, for balance/challenge, I suggest that when a city with a tower(s) is defeated, the towers should be assumed to have been destroyed during the siege, and the conqueror must start from scratch to build his own.

I think this is a good idea, only bad part is the owner will lose out on any 1 or 2 turn chance to regain it.

Good post, at least for making me consider it

(never really liked the spell of making myself)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I've put in code so that on a city's conquest that if it has one of the towers it gets destroyed. Will play around with it to see how it feels.

Awesome, I posted the same observation.

One idea/suggestion: maybe apply this as well to one per player buildings such as adventurer's guilds and towers?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

Quoting Alstein,

reply 5

Quoting Frogboy, reply 2
Quoting Kongdej, reply 1
So, for balance/challenge, I suggest that when a city with a tower(s) is defeated, the towers should be assumed to have been destroyed during the siege, and the conqueror must start from scratch to build his own.

I think this is a good idea, only bad part is the owner will lose out on any 1 or 2 turn chance to regain it.

Good post, at least for making me consider it

(never really liked the spell of making myself)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I've put in code so that on a city's conquest that if it has one of the towers it gets destroyed. Will play around with it to see how it feels.

Awesome, I posted the same observation.

One idea/suggestion: maybe apply this as well to one per player buildings such as adventurer's guilds and towers?

That I don't agree with. Those things should be prizes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wonder if there could be a way to give the faction losing the city the choice of whether or not to destroy the tower (like a button on the battle report), depending on how confident they are of getting it back (e.g. ai could compare military ratings and if it was stronger by a certain amount, it wouldn't destroy the tower).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Borg999

Join Date 02/2006

+59

Another issue:

The AI reacts when you start building the towers, but doesn't react when you start the spell of making.

So, I after taking the AI city with the towers, another AI (With a stronger power rating than me) declares war. I manage to barely destroy two stacks he sends my way, then he suggests a cease fire (outside of the diplo screen).

I accept the cease fire and start researching book of mastery. I complete the tech, rush build the last tower and start the spell of making, but the AI, doesn't even attempt to attack me.

One minor issue: (More of an irritation really)

When I was attacking the AI with the towers (The one in my OP), he kept on saying "You've earned my respect, let's stop the war". I refuse, and the next turn he asks me again, I refuse, then he ask me again the next turn, and again, and again, each and every turn until I finally defeated him.

Honestly, I think twice is enough.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 6

Quoting Alstein, reply 5
Quoting Frogboy, reply 2
Quoting Kongdej, reply 1
So, for balance/challenge, I suggest that when a city with a tower(s) is defeated, the towers should be assumed to have been destroyed during the siege, and the conqueror must start from scratch to build his own.

I think this is a good idea, only bad part is the owner will lose out on any 1 or 2 turn chance to regain it.

Good post, at least for making me consider it

(never really liked the spell of making myself)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I've put in code so that on a city's conquest that if it has one of the towers it gets destroyed. Will play around with it to see how it feels.

Awesome, I posted the same observation.

One idea/suggestion: maybe apply this as well to one per player buildings such as adventurer's guilds and towers?

That I don't agree with. Those things should be prizes.

Perhaps they should, but the problem is they make steamrolling easier- and steamrolling is typically a fundmental problem with TBS games.

Consolidation of conquests needs to be hard.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree with Frogboy. Domination is the hardest, longest, most grueling victory condition of the four. Conquests should be rewarded. If conquest is not rewarded, the game will just become a race to spell of making. If you're already steamrolling, chances are that gaining a special building's not going to make much of a difference. You're going to steamroll anyway. It's the games where you're struggling to survive. If you're frequently steamrolling your opponents, you should try a higher difficulty (unless you're already playing on Insane).

I also think the towers shouldn't be able to be reclaimed. Spell of Making is the easiest victory condition on the higher difficulties (sometimes Diplomatic is, but usually it's only easier if you're already winning). It's not even top-level tech. It's barely more than halfway up, so you can get it pretty early. It needed some potential setbacks.

I do agree with Borg999 about the AI proposing a cease-fire every turn. That sounds pretty annoying. There should be a cooldown on those. Or an option to block diplomacy options from a player.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

Steam rolling vs. end game morass are two sides of the same coin. Nothing is more annoying to me than knowing I'm going to win the game...eventually and having to trudge forward anyway.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 11

Steam rolling vs. end game morass are two sides of the same coin. Nothing is more annoying to me than knowing I'm going to win the game...eventually and having to trudge forward anyway.

The surrender option is made for this reason right?

We need random events that might flip the table though, I love having a big game provide a new challenge... When I feel I won, suddenly a whole new depth of punishment awaits me!
I know I know, don't tell me

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 11

Steam rolling vs. end game morass are two sides of the same coin. Nothing is more annoying to me than knowing I'm going to win the game...eventually and having to trudge forward anyway.

Then why don't you add a feature to "Domination/Conquest" that allows the players to set a minimum limit on those figures?

Like being able to set it at 51% or more? Player decides what he/she thinks is appropriate and then you don't have to trudge through to ultimate total domination or conquest?

I also thought of a most "hilarious" way for the AI to win the diplomatic part of the game. Since the player usually always steamrolls the AI, but, might have his/her sites set on a diplomatic victory have one of the AI's actually go for that early and try to ally with the other factions and eventually get to the point where the humaan player is the only one left to ally with and of course the humaan player doesn't know this and being the greedy fool he/she usually is accepts the alliance with that faction only to see the screen popup that he/she just lost the diplomatic victory. lmao Too funny.

One of the great things I liked about Galactic Civ II is there was one faction that could win an 'influence' victory if you weren't careful. I fell victum to that at least one game I remember. That might be a better or at least another victory condition to add to this game to prevent "turtling" by the player. Allow a certain pct of the map area owned/influenced to win the game also. THis pushes the player to expand outward and find his enemies instead of hiding under a rock and then coming out when he/she is powerful enough.

Successfully updated karma reason!