Suggestions for the next version of Slay

[maybeme]

4. Huts, when smashed, should return to the center of the territory. Now they return to the northwest, which gives a crucial advantage to players in the northwest.

I would suggest that:

If a hut is smashed, the land stays without a hut until the player's next turn. On his next turn, the player chooses where to place the hut in the land (i.e. builds it for no cost). If the player does not rebuild the hut, his land cannot accumulate money from turn to turn (i.e. unspent money in a no-hut land is lost when the player ends his turn; this issues an end-turn warning).

That MUST be included in Slay. I find it a wonderful idea!. Please Sean, think about it...

grtz

[statto]

No, I mean that the north territory's hut is in the north, leaving all of the south exposed for serfs... If the south's hut was in the north, north would have to keep hut-smashing from time to time, but south never has to because the hut is in the far north.

[gruff]

Okay, I see what you mean: a hut acts as a defense unit and so it is advantageous to have it on the border. Except for very small territories, I respectfully disagree. Hut-smashing is not something you "have" to do, or want to avoid. Smashing an opponent's hut is a thing that is good to do early and often. The fact that the south player couldn't smash the north's hut easily would be a drawback for the south and could lead to a north victory. I have played multiplayer games in which this has happened.

[statto]

Is hut-smashing a financial issue? That's the only way I can see justifying continuous hut-smashing...

[gruff]

Yes. When a hut is smashed, all of that territory's savings are lost. It's an essential tactic.

[statto]

I must have missed that in the help file-is it in there? I now agree with you... I know that there were times when I lost all my money but didn't realize when.

[Quitch]

My biggest want is an undo for purchases. If I buy a peasant or combine two units I want a button (say, right-click) which undoes my action.

[gruff]

The bit about huts losing money when smashed is in the help file section labelled "Attacking".

There is already an undo key for moves and purchases. It is the "backspace" key. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the help file. Right-click is the buy shortcut.

[Legacy]

I always use Ctrl+U

[gruff]

That's also possible. I'm lazy though and backspace only takes one finger.

4. Huts, when smashed, should return to the center of the territory. Now they return to the northwest, which gives a crucial advantage to players in the northwest.

I would suggest that:

If a hut is smashed, the land stays without a hut until the player's next turn. On his next turn, the player chooses where to place the hut in the land (i.e. builds it for no cost). If the player does not rebuild the hut, his land cannot accumulate money from turn to turn (i.e. unspent money in a no-hut land is lost when the player ends his turn; this issues an end-turn warning).

That MUST be included in Slay. I find it a wonderful idea!. Please Sean, think about it...

grtz

This is a bad idea for the following reason: If I go without a hut until my next turn, then I lose the defense benefits of having a hut during other players' turns. Say I'm player six, and player one smashes my hut. My territory loses the defensive value (spearman level) of the hut through the turns of players two through five inclusive, therefore I am more likely to lose more hexes than I would have if my hut had rebuilt instantly.

In a word: no.

[Quitch]

The bit about huts losing money when smashed is in the help file section labelled "Attacking".

There is already an undo key for moves and purchases. It is the "backspace" key. This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the help file. Right-click is the buy shortcut.

D'oh! That'd saved me a few years of pain

[tarot]

Actually, that is part of my intent for the suggestion. It is different from the current implementation, but not necessarily bad.

If your soldier defending your territory is killed, you don't get to regenerate him or do anything about it until your next turn. So why does your hut have to regenerate?

I just find it annoying to have to plan my attacks so that the opponent's regenerating hut doesn't get into my way. It's all within my turn, so why should I need to bother with dealing with the regenerating hut? If I smash the hut, I should be able to also conqure the surrounding territory, just like when I kill a soldier.

I would suggest that:

If a hut is smashed, the land stays without a hut until the player's next turn. On his next turn, the player chooses where to place the hut in the land (i.e. builds it for no cost). If the player does not rebuild the hut, his land cannot accumulate money from turn to turn (i.e. unspent money in a no-hut land is lost when the player ends his turn; this issues an end-turn warning).

That MUST be included in Slay. I find it a wonderful idea!. Please Sean, think about it...

grtz

This is a bad idea for the following reason: If I go without a hut until my next turn, then I lose the defense benefits of having a hut during other players' turns. Say I'm player six, and player one smashes my hut. My territory loses the defensive value (spearman level) of the hut through the turns of players two through five inclusive, therefore I am more likely to lose more hexes than I would have if my hut had rebuilt instantly.

In a word: no.

[gruff]

You have a point. However, when your turn starts, your money has to be in your hut already. Without a hut, you can't have any bank. I know that's just a convention of the game but it is one that appeals.

Also, would you have to build all huts before building any men? That might affect the joining of territories.

Thirdly, the automatic regeneration of huts is a disadvantage for you as the attacker, but an advantage for the defender. Changing it would be a zero sum thing. And I know, in challenge games you're always the attacker, but in multiplayer games the defense advantage of a hut can be crucial in the early stages.

Your argument is good but I remain unconvinced of the desireability of the proposed change.

[Sean OConnor]

I agree with gruff and I think it would get tediuos to have to position loads of new huts on tiny territories at the beginning of each turn when you wanted to get on with slaying.

In the next version I'll make it so that the huts appear in the "middle" of a new territory rather than use my cop-out method of just using the first hex in the array (i.e. the top left one).

[sid6.7]

could you make that an option...like a little toggle or
something?...i think it will alter the way the games is played
and even how the AI might react...would like to play
both ways to be sure...


IE...the AI might play more reckless if it
knows its hut is well inside its center and
protected...then if it were near a border...