Print

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

Complete Reversal and removal

6 (30%)

Stopped, no more catification, but not less

2 (10%)

Reversal, but requires small magic input to keep

4 (20%)

Embrace the cat

8 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 20

[Iituem]

Well this should be fun to watch.  :B

[Chiefwaffles]

I think it's fine when the infrastructure involves a level of creativity.

Like, for example, the Crystalworks in the original WR.
Now, the Crystalworks had its problems. Those problems namely being the fact that it did not work with WR's expense system. I still personally believe that ES wasn't reaaally considering the impact of the Crystalworks when we were designing new crystal things; though I don't actually care about that now.

Because the Crystalworks was cool. It was made using new tech, in a new way, to do something new. It had a notable, tangible impact on the battlefield - making crystal designs cheaper - that could be felt. Now, infrastructure that's "Design: Factory It's a factory for our stuff." or the good ol' "revise a military vessel into a cargo ship" gambit, should be avoided. But stuff like the Crystalworks (in a resource-based system) I think is a good thing.

I do agree that there shouldn't be infrastructure for more "general improvements" though. Like, no "make our troops aim better" or anything like that.

[Madman198237]

I take Chief's side in this:

Infrastructure, done well, can be an interesting addition to a game. But infrastructure/production being omnipresent and overbearing can be the most horrible thing to have to deal with.

[NUKE9.13]

Oh, I suppose if you were some kind of masochist, you could use Draignean's system in Spires Race. It's a lot of work (I imagine), but I think the results are quite impressive. No question about whether to include infrastructure there, since you need it to even research designs in the first place.

[Failbird105]

yeah I'm gonna agree with the others on the 2d4 system.

[NAV]

Infrastructure designs can lead to interesting things, like transports revised into makeshift combat ships or makeshift combat vehicles. Paratroopers, airdropped vehicles, landing craft. Revising an aircraft carrier into your sides main transport ship is itself an interesting piece of fluff. The reckless effect and ice giant were both fun and iconic designs. Transports are especially good if troop mobility speed is factored in.

I agree that factories and production infrastructure should be completely out of the scope of the game.

[FallacyofUrist]

Glad to see we're doing this.

That will be the subject of a future poll.

... if they did "fix" it, do they at least keep the catification technology?
~~~

[Roboson]

So this is a continuation of where the last one left off or it is a new one in the same style as the first?

[Chiefwaffles]

Revising combat vessels into transport vessels is the most overplayed thing and closest thing that the Arms Race "genre" as a whole has to a cliché. It's done in eeevery game to get TC, and is frankly tiring.

For something like Wands Race, and how new everything is and how it can't easily be abstracted by historical progression, production infrastructure should 100% be in the scope.
Not completely, of course. But if you make a new material? Better learn how to produce it.

[Thanatos Russ]

Oh my god I hope this is gucci

Requesting that TC isn't in the game. It detracts from the game, as EvictedSaint says.

However, I like the 2d4 system, so backing that. And I also enjoy setting up infrastructure to help make stuff better. I do NOT want the masochistic Draignean system, though I do like the research method of multiple rolls for completion. Provided that it's just for megaprojects really.

Maybe there could be a separate Infrastructure section to the inventing? and the infrastructure is always a megaproject of some kind (requiring multiple turns).

So, Magic invention and revision as usual, with infrastructure added parallel, and then maybe a generic action/order before battle phase?

[Rockeater]

You can try a separate infrastructure design phase like in the AR in sufficient velocity, solve the problem of wasted design.

[Chiefwaffles]

Eh. Making infrastructure its own phase would make it a needless chore and wouldn't really add anything to the game.
Half of the fun of infrastructure designs the opportunity cost; balancing your long-term projects/infrastructure with immediate usage. Sure, you can spend a design working on the [Crystalworks], but you'd have to delay that immediately-useful design for a turn.

[VoidSlayer]

Maybe make infrastructure an event-design?  Like not every turn you can do infrastructure but where it makes sense that one or both sides should do something they both get a one off option?  That way its not every round and its not going to eat up normal designs.

[crazyabe]

PTW.

[Gwolfski]

Voting on this poll ends today. Next poll: The issue of cats.