Donation

Help us to pay our server!
(: Consider a donation :)



Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Google+

Latest Posts

Topic: Couple of suggestions

WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 416
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Saxony, Djermany
Posted at: 2017-12-04, 18:07

Speter wrote:

Speter wrote: 4) Allow attacking with the best (and healthiest) troops - this was mentioned in another post I read.

WorldSavior wrote: What about implementing the possibility to choose exactly which soldiers attack?

I can see that it could be a real problem if all your "good" soldiers charge off to attack and the enemy chooses that moment to attack your building with few (crappy or unheathy) soldiers. face-wink.png

Yes, for example.

Choosing the soldiers who take part in an attack would be good, though time consuming!

Yes. I don't know any good solution for that yet.

By the way, if you click on an attackable building, your own buildings become sorted somehow: If you let only one soldier attack, he will be from building #1, the next one also and so on. Maybe it would be helpful if one could influence this sorting (or is it already possible? I don't know. Is here anyone who would like to explain how the buildings become sorted?).

. On a related topic, it would be nice to be able to send particular soldiers off to train up.

Yes, it could be very helpful if there wouldn't only be the modes "prefer heroes" and "prefer rookies" but also a mode "do not exchange soldiers". Maybe by implementing the stop button at military buildings or something like this?

Speter wrote: At present, how narrow does a 'river' have to be before ships can't navigate it? 3 tiles? So long as the bridges (or whatever) can only be that width they would not block ships...

WorldSavior wrote: The minimal broadness for ship movement is not 3 but 2.

I'd love to see bridges! So long as the player must already have a road to both sides of the water.

One could argue that water triangles which are next to standart land triangles are shallow water. So shallow that one can build a road there. I mean, even if there is no road, workers can walk through that water. So make small bridges sense at all?

In addition, having shallow water (like kaputtnik suggested) available in the map editor would be great. That would allow the map designer to choose to make a bit of water non-navigable to ships but allow a player to build a road along it.

One question would be is shallow water like land - that is you can simply build a "road" across it; or like a "bridge" where the player must already be able to build a road to both sides before they can build a bridge.

I've already constructed shallow water just with the normal editor: https://wl.widelands.org/maps/resource-moon/

But it has got some disadvantages. In this water are land triangles (well, it can also be an advantage, as you can clearly see that this water is shallow, otherwise this could be difficult to figure out). And it's not really logic that this shallow water can be much better for fishing than normal water face-grin.png

Tinker wrote:

It would also be nice if you could cancel an attack order. I have lost track of the number of times I have been checking what attack strength I have against enemy building only to click attack by mistake before my wounded guys are healed.

Yes, it could probably be good. I think in general I like most of the suggestions which would increase the cleverness of the tribes. This is one of those suggestions. But maybe it's possible to find some big disadvantages?

GunChleoc wrote:

We would think hard on allowing to cancel attacks, because it would have a big impact on strategy.

Yes. First of all notice that it is already possible to cancel attacks, but one has to enhance/dismantle/destroy the buildings of the attackers, and of course this is different to a case where you don't have to loose your territory control...

If one could cancel attacks, one could annoy the opponents a lot with attacks which are canceled right before the fights begin. Or one could attack a building so soldiers will leave buildings and then one can make a second attack on the buildings which are almost empty, and one can cancel the first attack or something like this...

But I don't know if this are arguments which are strong enough.

teppo wrote:

Speter wrote:

I can see that it could be a real problem if all your "good" soldiers charge off to attack and the enemy chooses that moment to attack your building with few (crappy or unheathy) soldiers. ;)

Sometimes, when one military sites is attacked, the soldiers of others rush too eagerly to help. This can lead to one single untrained poor guy to guard the other post. Enemy can take advantage of that.

In my opinion, the sites should send a smaller fraction of their force to the field, and keep more people indoors.

But it can also be an advantage if all soldiers swarm out.

I think it's a bigger problem that heavily wounded soldiers swarm out to help, they should better stay inside. I mean, if they would be attackers, they would try to retreat...

GunChleoc wrote:

And then the enemy can take advantage of that you're not fully defending the first attacked site and take that one instead. Evenly distributing the soldiers to attacked sites would be better,or having the return to their home site if it is attacked - but that can also be exploited by the enemy who then sends 1 rookie to each of your other sites to draw off your soldiers.

Somehow all three cases have their advantages and their disadvantages. I wonder if it would be better if one could control the soldiers more directly like in other strategie games...


*insert phrase about the necessity of saving the world here*

Top Quote