Generic or Unique

[simwiz2]

It also means someone who turtles in a corner will have a tough time fielding large armies. AoM uses the concept that RoN will take to the next level; that to field massive armies you have to expand.

 

And I like how it prevents the whole 2-base-void thing that came up in the RoN discussions.

[CorranSec]

Sure, sounds fine, but it seems that what simwiz said was a misnomer ('flexible' pop cap).

OK, so, we've got a bunch of 'settlements' scattered around the map, and you have to control them to get more pop? Sounds good, but I still think houses are useful. What about this combo:

When you start, your Command Center gives you 30 max pop, and 15 actual pop. You have to build houses (10 pop) to reach the 30 pop limit though.

Then, when you capture a settlement, you get another 30 max pop and 10 actual pop, and still must build houses to reach the actual limit.

How's that sound?

 

Oh, and just one possible problem that I just thought of- won't promoting expansion and quick grabbing of settlements also promote rushing?

[Sithmaster_821]

The house settlement combo is what AoM uses (houses for early on when you need all of your resources to advance/build an army, and settlements come in later when you are trying to expand).

[simwiz2]

Is promoting rushing really a bad thing?

[joesdomain]

Unique unit sets should be used if they make a Galactic Battlegrounds 2 or another Star Wars RTS game. I think civilizations with the same type of units are boring. Especially the air cruisers, undeployed cannons, and ships.

[Sithmaster_821]

[nostalgia]Remember when we thought that rushing was doing the game in, simwiz? And the scary part is that that was in April:)[/nostagia]

[simwiz2]

You mean the turtle days of AoC? Please don't remind me.

[CorranSec]

I don't personally think that promoting rushing is a bad thing, but we should strive to make a game which caters for all styles of play, and some people might like turtling and hate rushing. (and we hate them, but that's not the point)

 

Also, another thing that I just thought of- wouldn't this just lead to people fortifying the settlements they own, and creating a dozen mini-bases scattered across the map? Also, because everybody defends their settlements so well, it'd end up being too hard to capture them and thus leading to the pop cap staying in the same place for the whole game!!!

 

And that is something that I do NOT wish to promote.

[Admiral Vostok]

But that is a worst case scenario and it basically equates to what we've got now. So if the worst thing that could come from this idea is that it gets like what we do now, I say that's not too bad.

[CorranSec]

That's not a worst case scenario, that's an educated prediction on what will happen in every game. If you had to keep something sitting out in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't you build towers etc. around it?

How does this equate to what we've got now?

Now- houses built in your main base, which of course is well defended

Settlements- houses scattered around the map, many well defended bases being built around the houses.

It's only my settlement/house combo which makes them like each other, and even that will still lead to both of the aforementioned situations.

[Admiral Vostok]

I think you misunderstand me, or I you.

 

I think the multiple settlement idea is fine, but in your proposed case of "what if we stay in our bases and the population doesn't change" I was merely pointing out that now, even if we don't stay in our bases the population doesn't change.

 

And yes I think we still need houses or prefab shelters, but settlements also add to population just like command centers and fortresses do now.

[CorranSec]

But right now, even if we do stay in our bases, we can still build our pop (by building houses). With the new idea, you could possibly do that, but only to a very small extent, and eventually you'd have to go out and try to capture a settlement.

[Arthur2]

or maybe u can limit the number of prefab shelters that a certain settlement can hold

so eventually ppl will have to go out and find more settlements

well

i don't really like this idea cause it limits the gameplay too much ><

[simwiz2]

If you have 6 settlements and are trying to defend all of them, then you can have about 1/6 of your force at each. Meanwhile, your opponent can attack one with his entire force, rip down the Command Center and build his own CC. As long as buildings aren't super-strong, capturing settlements from other players is not too hard.

[Sithmaster_821]

Housing limits go hand in hand with settlements.

[Sithmaster_821]

In AoM, it is rare to see people defend a settlement that isnt in the direct scene of the battle. Its just not worth your time and energy. The only settlements that people expand off of and fortify are the ones near forward bases or enemy towns or close to home.

[simwiz2]

I am well aware they aren't going to put their army in that corner-of-the-map settlement. But I was simply illustrating how attacking is more advantageous than turtling around settlements.

[Sithmaster_821]

Actually i was talking to Corran, who said that people would turtle all of their settlements.

[Arthur2]

well i am still playing AoM demo

dunno about full version but shouldn't be too much different

i occupy some settlements and i just build couple of towers and let villigers do their work

if someone comes over and try to take over

i send me troops over...

that way u dun split ur troop so enemies don't have the outnumber advantage

neh

i think just keep the way it is now

cauz i think the settlements idea is not very...cool

dunno how to explain

just feels weird

[CorranSec]

I was mainly thinking of people doing what Arthur does; fortifying them with turrets and the like, and then only sending a portion of your force there when it's attacked.

If you have a fortress (or equivalent defensive structure) and a bunch of towers and walls at each settlement, your opponent will need to utilise a great deal of force to take it from you, which they may not be able to possess, because they don't control the settlement, and can't build the units! This leads to an eventual unbreakable stalemate, something I dearly wish to avoid.

[Arthur2]

so...let's drop that idea

in AoM

it's not that big of a deal becoz each settlement only adds like 15 pop or something

and one stupid Hydra adds 5, which means u will only be able to produce 3 more hydras with each settlement u conquer

...

i'd say just keep it the way it is now

or maybe we can do it like EE : not having any houses at all...

heh

[Admiral Vostok]

Agreed. All that settlement stuff is making my head spin.

[Sithmaster_821]

First of all, Arthur, i really dont see why you would need more than 3 hydra. They cost so much because they are so strong. Ah, balance in the works.

 

And, about towering up settlements: too expensive. Buildings arent very strong, and towers that arent defended fall easily to siege or anit-building MU. Towers work vs the AI (it is, and always will be, prone to just walking past tower fire without attacking), but humans can take 'um easy. Fortress equivelants are also the same way. You'd still lose an army if you attacked them headlong, but buildings in general fall much quicker than in AoK or SWGB. In a game between equals, settlement control is quite fluid.

 

And as for it not making sense, sure does. What you are essentially doing is going over and subjigating a neutral town, thus expanding the amount of soldiers you can build with the + people under your control.

[Arthur2]

i don't see why we'd need that

just build houses

settlements are crap

[simwiz2]

because unless everyone who will be playing the game is to have a 4 gHz computer, you will need a pop limit. And a hard pop limit is not only bland and boring, it limits gameplay. A fluid pop limit is MUCH more interesting. It is no longer just build a set # of houses and reach the 200 pop. Now you need to expand over more of the map. Just try out AoM, it works great in that game.

 

As long as LA carefully considers the effects of doubling building HP before doing so, GB2 will not be a game of turtling settlements.