Bryce wrote:I agree with Shaun simply on the basis that it would "diffract" the game, making it less uniform.
Less "uniform" compared to what ? Precisely, it would transform the game from boring unniform inevitable win to a game allowing more intelligence, initiative, surpises and new strategies.
Considering the idea: I completely disagree. That would remove a huge amount of the strategy that the game possess, as well as making game play too unpredictable.
I find it amazing that you prefer a game "predictable". Is it to remain in the comfort of winning every game ? I have already already won all games on very clever more than once. Now Slay is no longer exciting because when I start playing I can predict that I shall win.
Purists will say : ah .. but you win in 30 turns, I make it in 29 or better!
This argument is valid only a little. When you win, you win. When you have lost, you lost. I give you a comparison:
Your enemi kills you (or you kill the enemi if you are superstitious). It is no better if he kills you twice or you kill him twice. There is no extra kudo for killing him twice over.
Strategy in Slay is at least as concerned with $$$ as with killing. The point of the exponential growth of unit upkeeps is so that military domination hurts you. If you could sell, you could use barons and knights to cut like no other. Since you wouldn't be making enough to support the units turn to turn (hence selling them back,) you would be unable to afford a standing army to defend against such cuts. The result of implementing this idea would be that Slay would become a purely offensive game, with little to no defensive thought.
Your reasoning assumes that I am suggesting that we could scale down using the same value as scaling up.
I have not suggested this. Quite to the contrary, I would suggest that the scaling down is done at say half the values of purchasing. This would add some spice to the decisions, hence challenging intelligence which, after all, is the purpose of this game.
As far as making the game more intelligent I think it would do quite the opposite. It would allow you to make moves without considering their long term impact. When I'm playing a game I make sure I need those two knights to progress before I start popping out units with 18 upkeep apiece.
I have replied to this in the previous point. But you talk of the "impact of decisions in the long tem". Once again, my suggestion adds a new dimension to the game : some long term decisions and some short term ones.
Of course, it is always more comfortable to stick to what we know and that we find predictable. (alas in my case invariably a boring predictable win).
The aim of the game is to make us think ... and rethink. Ideally over many years. My suggestion aims precisely at this goal. The true question is more technical: Is it too complicated to program this versatile and re-invigorated game ?
If Sean can do it, he will have a great game to maket. If he cannot or does not wish to, it is fair enough. But there is no need to defend "uniform" and "predictable" as better than what I suggest for a truly challenging intelligence game.