little change to game rules

Conquer the island
Post Reply
Diddl
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:30 pm

little change to game rules

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.

User avatar
Legacy
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Wellsboro, PA, USA
Contact:

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

Yes, remember to pillage before you burn...

Dave W
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:05 pm

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.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

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

I agree! That sounds great!
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

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.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

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
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:05 pm

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
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

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.

User avatar
Legacy
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Wellsboro, PA, USA
Contact:

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

And maintain larger armies through loot...

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

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
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

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.)

User avatar
qwas
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

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
Proud member of Seans forum since 14th April 2005. 1 year and still counting.
Now to spam those 30 messages to get into 3rd place in post count. :D

I'd like to buy your soul please.
http://www.mindistortion.net/iwantyours ... lex_Rider2

User avatar
gruff
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:44 am
Location: New York State
Contact:

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.

Post Reply