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.
gruff wrote: maybeme wrote: tarot wrote:
gruff wrote: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...
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.