Page 5 of 8

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:33 pm
by Legacy
Indeed, I tend to win many of my games by creative use of trees and by shrewd strategies to control trees. Sometimes it's best to drop a castle or two in to fence off a small grove than to take men off the front to wipe them out.

Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:35 pm
by collier
Indeed, I tend to win many of my games by creative use of trees and by shrewd strategies to control trees. Sometimes it's best to drop a castle or two in to fence off a small grove than to take men off the front to wipe them out.
Oh, c'mon, Legs. We all know that you hardly ever win any of our network games, so how can you say, "I tend to win many of my games..."? :-)

Oh, perhaps you were referring to games that you play against the computer?


Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:12 pm
by Dave W
Oh, c'mon, Legs. We all know that you hardly ever win any of our network games, so how can you say, "I tend to win many of my games..."?
Heh! What he said....

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:32 am
by Fuzzy Wonky
He didn't say "I win" but "I tend to win"...
It's just the same for me too often: 1) tend to win :D , and 2) try to win :) :? , and 3) ... s..t! just lost! :( :cry:

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:56 am
by gruff
I can't wait for the improved map editor that is sure to come. Then we will find out just how easily Legs can be beaten.

My $0.02

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:51 pm
by Darkness
:idea: Slay is great, thankyou Sean and a hex on you :twisted:
(6 ways Slay could be better IMHO)

1) Show Info for other territories...
Would be nice to be able to see savings and income from enemy territories.
This info, while not presented, is not hidden currently. You can follow a territories income and expenditure each turn and calculate its savings.
In cases like: they have 5 income and 5 hexes, if I take one hex now it will slow them by a turn.
Usually players have a rough idea how many savings an enemy has; so why not make it plain and easily available?

2) Update info for your territories...
It would be good also if the current income and wages were listed as the turn progresses. At the moment you have to think: hmm income was 17 and I captured 3 territories so I should be able to afford an upkeep of 20...

3) Change where huts appear when Huts die
I like the idea of huts in the middle, better than the top and simple too.
Maybe there could be an option for "preferred new hut location". The hut would be rebuilt there (and default to middle if 'there' is not available).
Auto-building huts causes a problem when there is no open space for the hut...does it kill castle, unit or tree's?
Perhaps the hut should not appear when there is no space, appearing on the first free space made available in your turn?

4) Allow moving huts
It would also be nice to be able to move the hut for a small fee. Good for early game defence and late game to hide the hut away. Something like move the hut 1 hex for 1 gold?

5) Make Enemies look different
It would be alot better if the enemies were different to your own soldiers.
This could be with different icons or to save resources (on Palm etc) with a colour change.
Maybe you could choose a theme for yourself and a theme for enemies

6) Replay the computer's/other players moves...
It would be nice to be able to replay the moves of the other players to see how the situation got the way it is (sometimes).
You could then watch the order of events.. oh red took that then blue took that ...

And oh yeah, you could consider changing the name
Slay? It's not very catchy... There could be a better name. Hex wars, Hexslay! err even Battlehexes is better than Slay.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:30 pm
by Fuzzy Wonky
Not so easy to say cause now I have got so much used to it, but I must admit I totally agree with Darkness concerning the changing of name...

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:27 am
by hs5ias
One idea I've had but which is probably a bit much for the moment is to change the consequences of a gold shortfall.

Currently all your men are eliminated if you're short so much as a single gold to pay the entire wages bill. This seems a bit drastic to me, after all you presumably can still collect gold from the territory as it is still under your control.

Instead how about only those men you cannot pay for are eliminated. Starting from the most expensive in terms of maintenance they die off until you are left with a force you can pay for. Gold that can only partially pay for a man goes to the treasury.

Effectively your peasants are paid first, then the spearmen, then the knights and finally the barons. If you run out of gold any left unpaid are eliminated at random.

This will make encirclements rather less lethal. In particular peasants will be very hard to kill off en masse this way, allowing armies to be rebuilt much quicker. Combats will be less bloody and a steady grinding through frontal attacks and direct elimination will be a more viable tactic.

I don't know if this has been proposed before and been rejected but I though I'd mention it. I think it might improve the single-player game a bit as currently the poor computer players are dreadfully vulnerable to encirclement.

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:00 am
by gruff
It would make games last much longer.


Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:43 am
by Hernalt
I'm a newcomer to this board but a long-time addict of Slay. I have not yet purchased the new version of Slay because it does not have any strategic changes. I have not yet investigated network games because of low availability (full time school).

What I think would be interesting was if there was an options system where a few key changes could be set before the start of the game. I have seen the issue of the huts being centered upon regeneration, and I have no opinion on that. What might be interesting would be options that can be turned "on":

Option 1: Spearmen cannot destroy a hut by attacking the hut itself, but they are able to indirectly destroy a hut only if the hut has one adjacent hex, and the spearman captures that one hex.
Option 2: Knights can enter the hex surrounding a castle, but cannot defeat the castle unless the castle has been left completely without surrounding hexes. Barons retain original powers.
Option 3: Every castle has a cost per turn of 2 gold.
Option 4: Garrisoning the castle: you can a spearman or a knight onto a castle for a combined defense force. The cost for this is not attractive: It is for tactical emergencies and costs 1.5 the sum of the garrison and the castle (if Option 3 is turned on). If Option 2 is turned on, a spearman can prevent a knight from encroaching on adjacent hexes. A knight can prevent a baron from destroying the castle, but cannot prevent the baron from encroaching on adjacent hexes. As usual, if the supply line of hexes connecting the occupied castle is cut, the garrison dies but does not turn to trees.

Idea: Successfully capturing enemy castles, i.e., completely taking the hexes surrounding them, garners a tribute income of 2: 1 tax from the hex + 1 tribute from the castle.
Idea: Surrounding and securing individual enemy hexes garners 1.5 tribute/tax revenue per hex, .5 more than the 1 tax revenue of your own color.
Idea: 20 gold allows you to turn a water hex to a land hex or vice versa. Creating offshore islands would allow bankrolling, but would have to be reconnected to access the 'bank.'
Idea: Castles as gold reserves that huts traditionally are.
Idea: Option to install additional huts at key chokepoints? (fairly unnecessary)

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:10 am
by Fusion_power
So I don't really want much. But I would really like some improvements in the AI's logic. I'm totally frustrated by the AI's inability to properly attack a castle.

The AI will build 3 knights to kill the capitol next to the castle 3 times on the same move. Instead it should kill the castle, then use peons and spearment to wipe out the remaining territory.

This is only one of a dozen or so changes I would love to see.


Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:28 am
by qwas
I second that...

PS: Check out my new sig/avvi, I wanted both of them bigger, but they were too big.


Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:38 am
by Hernalt
Does anyone do hex-editing on this game? I bought the 4.2 and downloaded teh WWII scenario. Although I am happy to admit that I probably do not have the expertice to successfully deploy Italy and Germany against the combined forces of France, Britain, Russia and Poland, it occurs to me that the cash flow for Germany (i.e., military capability) is a little low compared to France. (Ok - now someone out there ought to come up with little soldiers and tanks and airplanes for a new theme...) I mean - how can you get a blitzcrieg going AND install the Vichy regime AND get your ass kicked at Stalingrad (and attempt to steal the Ark of the Covenant) on a starting budget of 2? And is there any way to compell computer teams to cooperate? (I made them put up castles on their borders.) As much as I think Germany's budget is too low, seeing Britain invade France is just hilarious.

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:06 pm
by gruff
You just have to get better man! It is winnable as Germany. And there is a military theme already.


Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:43 am
by Hernalt
I'm confident I'm missing something crucial with the WWII game. How exactly does one play it? Do you play Germany and Italy then auto-play everyone else? Do you endturn (rather than autoplay) the browns? Are France, Britain, Poland or Russia allowed to attack Germany or Italy before Germany or Italy attacks them? Is any of the brown an ally of Germany? What exactly do you do with the brown Middle-east? Is is "supposed" to join Poland? tks