Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Do we need that many more ressources? The ressource mechanic is interesting because of scarcity.

[Radio Controlled]

Do we need that many more ressources? The ressource mechanic is interesting because of scarcity.

The resource cost can be increased for new things later on to keep the scarcity, this would just introduce another few strategic choices and opportunities. But it'd also be a bit mote work and complicate the game a bit. Just spitballing ideas really.

Perhaps something like building a city/town gives a resource cap advantage, but is harder to defend, while a fort doesn't give resource buffs but are a defensive strongpoint. And then have a sort of cap on both (eg max 2 cities, each city allows for 2 more forts). Then people have to weigh defending their imprtant cities with (a) forts versus defending their front lines better. And maybe make it so cities can't be build everywhere, but only certain locations, while forts can go anywhere.

Ohhh, I like that idea! Hey RC why don't you join a thread, we could use good ideas!

I'd love to, but ER takes up most of my forum time. And if I can't really contribute decently, I might as well just spectate for now.

[Graknorke]

And the armistice/time-skip mechanic gives a way to allow resources to not spiral out of control, by having the value of resources increase between skips. So something that's a 12 ore monster now could be scaled down to 4 as ore costs are all cut to 1/3 after the armistice.

[Sheb]

And the armistice/time-skip mechanic gives a way to allow resources to not spiral out of control, by having the value of resources increase between skips. So something that's a 12 ore monster now could be scaled down to 4 as ore costs are all cut to 1/3 after the armistice.

That would make sense, allowing for ressources inflation/deflation between armistice. I can already feel the salt though.

[Kashyyk]

 This is why I like soundboarding ideas off of players. You'll come up with uses that I won't think of.

That plan could end up with 5 cities and 10 fortresses a side though, which would make the map rather cramped. I like the idea behind it though.

You can support as many fortresses as you have cities. There is no penalty for having more fortresses than cities,  but the only way you'll get to that point is through conquest. Independent fortresses do not provide their conqueror with resources. Building a fortress will only cost a single focus action.  City building may be a thing, but it'll only happen during years of peace.

How does that sound?

PPE: That is also possible too.

[Sheb]

That make more sense, but it still has the issue that it make sense to place your fortresses far from the front line to protect them.

[Taricus]

Well, you 're aren't likely to lose a fortress barring a concentrated attack and siege. I'd probably take a year just to take one and you'd have to sacrifice getting any land gains on that front to do so

[Sheb]

Land is kind of useless though. Although I guess it'd still make sens to have fortresses guarding your cities, since it's better to loose a fort than a city.

[Taricus]

Well, they have to actually take that land in order to advance.

[Radio Controlled]

That make more sense, but it still has the issue that it make sense to place your fortresses far from the front line to protect them.

But a fortress in itself doesn't give a bonus elsewhere anymore, while putting them at the front gives a stable base to attack from or to retreat to when thing go bad, meaning a counterattack can't do as much damage. It also allows you to hold a line while pushing elsewhere. Putting them all at the back means you don't get any of their defensive bonusses until the enemy has already pushed you back a lot (barring naval onvasions opening new fronts of course).

But yes, land having little value on its own diminishes their use somewhat.

[Sheb]

Wait, my understanding was that Fort you build give you access to one more ressources?

Actually, I think I like the idea of a max number of fortresses, but fort giving no ressources.

[Radio Controlled]

The idea of my original proposal was to decouple the resource bonus from the defensive bonus. But rereading kasshyk's latest idea seems to indicate forts you build yourself still give the resource bonus, meaning the original problem stands.

[10ebbor10]

Someone else's fort doesn't count towards your build limit, no.

I meant, if Faction A builds a fort, which is captured by Faction B, can A then build 2 or 1 more fort.

I like that idea. Fortresses add 1 to the resource cap. This includes independent and nationally built ones. The number of fortresses a nation can control is unlimited,  but for balance, nations can only build 2 fortresses. A fortresses is built using a combined production/focus action. This will apply from the beginning of next turn.

I'll collate these new rule changes when I do the turn.

I can see a disadvantage with this system: It encourages us to build forts as soon as possible, and in well-defended places.
Why as soon as possible? Well, for the cost of a production and focus action, you get a permanent reduction in cost for probably at least one of your designs, which is the equivalent of spending a production action on it.
Why well-defended? Since you are only ever allowed to build two forts, and the loss of a fort is equivalent to both you losing a resource and your enemy gaining one, the risk of losing a fort is offsetting the defensive advantages of it.

You only get an increased cap, as far as I understand it. Still need a resource extraction design.

Do we need that many more ressources? The ressource mechanic is interesting because of scarcity.

At the moment, it's kind of boring considering there's only 1 good option.

[Sheb]

What do you mean, "one good option"?

[10ebbor10]

There's at this moment, no reason at all not to pick Ore as an extra resource.