little change to game rules

Diddl · Post by **Diddl** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:44 pm

if you destroy the house of an enemy, this enemy loose his savings.

i think it would be fair, this savings would go to the party who has destroyed the house.

Legacy · Post by **Legacy** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:19 pm

Yes, remember to pillage before you burn...

Dave W · Post by **Dave W** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:13 pm

I'd like this idea as an optional setting to choose
before the game starts. With enough optional settings like this we could play Slay under a wide variety of conditions.... which would be really interesting.

Fighter_Ace · Post by **Fighter_Ace** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:45 am

I agree! That sounds great!

BoxZone_Author · Post by **BoxZone_Author** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:02 pm

That option would substantially alter the dynamics of the game and undermine the present ability of comparing 'fewest days' to win on each world.

Post by **Sean OConnor** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:27 pm

Yes, I don't want to make the rules customisable as then you wouldn't be able to compare scores.

Dave W · Post by **Dave W** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:25 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:Yes, I don't want to make the rules customisable as then you wouldn't be able to compare scores.

That's understandable for the "challenge games", but for multiplayer network games it doesn't seem to be an issue. Each battle is a world in itself -- why not let the conditions vary from one to the next?

highlandsun · Post by **highlandsun** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:41 am

It would certainly change the style of play. Right now if I see I can split a region without taking the capital, I will. But if there's money to be gained from getting the capital, vs completely eliminating an enemy region, I may let the enemy regions live a bit longer. And if the money stays in play instead of disappearing, I imagine the game will accelerate since you'll be able to build new units faster.

Legacy · Post by **Legacy** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:03 am

And maintain larger armies through loot...

gruff · Post by **gruff** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 2:47 pm

One rule change that might improve multiplayer games would be to make castles more expensive - 20 like they used to be. Multiplayer games can bog down into castle forests, so making them pricier might keep the game more fluid.

highlandsun · Post by **highlandsun** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:20 pm

Along the lines of limiting the arms race - right now every piece in the game is balanced, except for Barons. Two choices here - allow upgrading castles to Knight strength, or eliminate barons.

That is, there's an even progression of units and terrain, except for barons:
peasant > empty land
spearman > capital
knight > castle
baron > ???

If we had an option to disable use of barons, or an option to build super-castles, that would keep things more even. (Although being more even would probably lead to more stalemates.)

Also perhaps an option to fortify capitals, to give them castle strength. (Again that would just tend to lengthen the games. But it might be an interesting counter to the looting proposal.)

Another option - don't eliminate capital buildings when two regions merge into one. The treasury can still consolidate into one, like it does now, but leave the building standing as a peasant-strength fort. (And provide the ability to upgrade buildings, just like you can upgrade men.)

qwas · Post by **qwas** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:26 pm

baron > everything LOL

Also perhaps an option to fortify capitals, to give them castle strength. (Again that would just tend to lengthen the games. But it might be an interesting counter to the looting proposal.)

But that come at a price, like, 10? optional

gruff · Post by **gruff** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:13 pm

Barons are fine the way they are. They cost so much to maintain that they are rarely built in multiplayer games. I see no need for a supercastle.