Re: [gamedesign-l] Redesigning Civ like games
- On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Rainer Deyke <rainerd@...> wrote:
>Freeciv games are often terminated based on relative score. It allows
> If more is necessary, bias the game toward completion by awarding
> victory points. Victory points can be gained in various ways but never
> lost, so the game tends toward a race instead of a stalemate.
players to admit that they're losing. That said, sometimes people
protest that the score doesn't measure the most important things, like
tactical position or some such. Usually such protests are solved by
walloping on the player until they see sense.
Brandon Van Every
- On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:06 PM, David Lamb <david.alex.lamb@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery@...>Then you have to wait to build the catapults. Either way you are
>> Waiting for
>> catapults to Bombard the city defenses to 0% takes many turns.
> Only if you don't bring enough catapults.
waiting. Once you've got a force of catapults, it may take less time
to lay siege. If you don't sacrifice the catapults to weaken the
enemy on the final assault. But the 1st time you lay a serious siege,
you have to build up that Stack of Doom. I say it takes too long,
compared to previous Civs.
>> Marching through enemy territory is slow. Foot units move 1 tile perDoes that mean you prefer long, nonviolent, defensive, single player
>> turn, mounted units move 2 tiles per turn, half their speed on
>> "regular" terrain.
> Yes, but -- I'm glad the enemy are limited to that rate when they come
> attacking *me*.
experiences? I think if I ran this mechanic past the multiplayer
Freeciv crowd, they'd find it irritating because it slows down the
game so much.
Brandon Van Every