Topic: Zero capacity for military buildings
ypopezios Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2018-05-16, 14:46
Is there a good reason that already occupied military buildings cannot be set to 0 capacity (like warehouses can)? Top Quote |
einstein13 |
Posted at: 2018-05-16, 15:01
einstein13 |
Ex-Member |
Posted at: 2018-05-16, 15:20
Perhaps warehouses, or definitely ports, should be military buildings as well? They do store soldiers and currently players have no control of them. Top Quote |
ypopezios Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2018-05-16, 16:27
Couldn't we say the same for any other building? Why not enforcing minimum occupation to all buildings or none instead?
If I'm not mistaken, there were many empty military structures in Iraq. There are many in my empir...err...country too. Guess what? All of them are deep inside the country.
Nobody will obligate people to empty their military buildings. Actually, the inverse is true: The other time I conquered without effort an HQ empty of soldiers, no matter it was surrounded by many military buildings, which could not defend it because they were all filled with 1 soldier each. That doesn't pass reality check...
That has been suggested in the past. I'm not against control, but that should include emptying it. Top Quote |
king_of_nowhere |
Posted at: 2018-05-16, 19:53
put that way, I'm not against setting 0 military capacity. Could make sense, you build a second line of defence and leave it unmanned unless you actually need it. Right now you'd have to assign a low soldier to it, which isn't a big deal anyway, so from game perspective there is little difference Top Quote |
GunChleoc |
Posted at: 2018-05-17, 07:03
Well, Widelands is not realistic, it's a computer game. Removing the minimum requirement of 1 soldier would change the game's strategy. It's an obstacle to overcome that wouldn't be there any more. We'd also need to differentiate between 0 soldiers (currently not occupied) and 0 soldiers (was never occupied). Otherwise, the enemy could instantly attack any finished militarysite before the player has had a change to send some soldiers there.
This has been on our wishlist forever and there's a blueprint and an open bug for this on Launchpad. Busy indexing nil values Top Quote |
ypopezios Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2018-05-17, 12:17
A player who needs the last soldier of a building will probably destroy it. The AI may dismantle it (although it won't be quick enough). I don't see how that affects strategy at all. It seems to me like an artificial requirement left from the time that territory-control needed permanent military buildings. This is why I made the initial question of this thread, to see if I'm missing something basic.
They should rather be identical. An empty military building should become like a never occupied finished military site (flag down, non-attackable, no territory-control, vulnerable to enemy's expansion). In other words, like it got destroyed by the player and immediately rebuilt. No need for special third state to implement or teach to players. Top Quote |
kaputtnik |
Posted at: 2018-05-17, 16:56
What is the benefit of your suggestion? Fight simulator for Widelands: |
ypopezios Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2018-05-17, 17:27
This thread started with the inverse question ("What is the benefit of the restriction?"), for me to see if I miss something. If it turns out that there is no good reason for the restriction, then I could think of a few benefits from removing it:
Top Quote |
kaputtnik |
Posted at: 2018-05-17, 19:57
I don't see a restriction... A building becomes 'working' when the needed person come to it. If it is a bakery, smeltingworks or sentry. All production buildings without the needed worker do not work. So why should a military building do 'work' if no soldier is in it? Military buildings have the task to enlarge and safe your territory. So they are needed mainly at the border. Normally (from my perspective, and i think most good players do think the same) military buildings deep inside your territory have no reasons to be there. Usually i dismantle them to get back some wares and the soldiers. Depending on this thought, and with regard to your suggestion, i should leave military buildings empty on the border?
Has to be evaluated how much CPU time it costs
As explained there is a consistency with other buildings (at least production sites). A comparison 'Warehouse <-> Military Building' isn't satisfying, imho.
As explained: if you dismantle military buildings deep inside your territory, you get also the soldiers back. If you'r lacking soldiers, you've made a failure with your economy.
I don't understand this point.
Has to be answered by Tibor.
Isn't this also true right now? Sorry, but i see currently no good reasons for implementing your suggestion. Just my opinion Fight simulator for Widelands: |