I don't know. Prefering heroes would be a good start.
Maybe, but I don't consider it as necessary, because I don't have a problem with the micromanagement.
I guess this ultimate military focus could be shortened by allowing more than one win condition at a time. Consider a multiplayer match where autocrat AND wood gnome AND collector are active at the same time.
Autocrat is always active
Add some form of maintenance-costs for the existing soldiers.
For example, for each soldier periodically provide food, plus wages proportional to his rank. On failure to provide those:
- Lack of wage demotes the soldier.
- Lack of food sends the soldier back to civilian life (but if he reaches a warehouse, his weapons are saved).
In such a game, a super army can be maintained only by a super economy. Larger empires have a bigger challenge in sending on time food/wages to distant soldiers. Moreover:
- Military buildings store food and wages. Soldiers consume those when their time comes. Therefore, disconnected military buildings cannot sustain their soldiers for long.
- Unless for defense, a soldier leaves a military building only after eating (and maybe only after healing, which may consume more food).
- Soldiers inside training buildings don't need wages.
- Soldiers inside warehouses don't need maintenance, but they get gradually demoted (HQ can be an exception, in order to make final battle more challenging). Therefore, military buildings away from borders become useful in storing promoted soldiers.
Easier tribes could avoid either food (self-sustained soldiers) or wages (self-motivated soldiers). Balancing can be achieved by adjusting the time period between consecutive food/wages (i.e. self-sustained soldiers are paid more often, and self-motivated soldiers eat more often).
It is unfortunate that the only measure of the effectiveness of the economy is the strength of the army, trade and diplomacy would be better or at least equally important . A better range of win conditions would help as well and any improvement would need a leap in AI processes, AI needs at least to be capable of playing different win conditions.
So why don't you aim for teaching the AI different win conditions instead of aiming for changing the game drastically? Remember that the current game is the result of a lot of work of a lot of developers. So changing the official game a lot means also to destroy something, which can't be good.
If we really want to make economy as important as military, we have to tie them much more closely. There is a drastic feature to achieve that, which gives extra emphasis to logistics:
Add some form of maintenance-costs for the existing soldiers.
I really don't like the concept. It would be a big pain, especially on small maps where your food production is scarce.
The change I propose is, I believe, the best way to put more emphasis on economy and less on getting the first supersoldier, without severely changing the game
It would severely change the game. And we already have a big focus on economy on maps where the enemy is not so close.
it is still more effective to kill your opponent before he can achieve another win condition
Very true. However, alternative win-conditions are desirable when no side can dominate the map.
It would be a big pain, especially on small maps where your food production is scarce.
Either a big pain or a big challenge/fun.
No fun but something like pain
No pain no gain.
That saying is very questionable. For example I don't feel pain when I spend time with Widelands, but I gained to become the most successful player here.
I think that the change of gameplay should be in more than one ways.
From my perspective king_of_nowhere's idea about promoting trainers is very good and makes it hard to get level 10 soldiers. So that getting to this point is rather long-term. This probably will change the goal for most of the games (from reach supersoldiers and fight to make efficient economy to make supersoliders to fight).
But Ypopezios idea is quite interesting and makes the game even more exciting.
But - as always - idea needs polishing. Food consumption is a very good idea, but wages as gold/iron inglots is too valuable for me.
The problem of many strategy games like Widelands is the single-point-of-success.
What's the definition of that at all?
But when it comes to experienced players, that phenomenon becomes very obvious and makes the game less interesting. Cause whoever gets the early advantage, will most probably win the game, no matter how many hours later.
Why do you mention that? Widelands is not like that. For example if you look at the last tournament match "tando-einstein", tando didn't only get the early advantage but a huge early advantage. But einstein won, so the game is not that simple.
In such close races, any little advantage gained by micromanagement can make all the difference (like in many formula-1 races, where cars make endless circles for many hours, but their finishing-order has been decided since the first-turn-decisions, or even earlier in the garage, since the alteration of some detail in some part of the car). And such a game-experience is no more strategy, it is racing with clicks (no need to mention how boring this is).
Widelands is much more complex than a race and it's for sure no "racing with clicks". You are discussing as if you would be an expert of the game but it looks for me that you aren't one.
By "single-point-of-success" we don't mean "single-victory-condition", neither "single-measurement-unit", neither "single-point-on-the-map" (they all start with "single", but they mean different things). The single-point-of-success in all the mentioned games is the point of military domination. That point can make mute every other point, and every other point serves that point. It doesn't matter if that domination refers to the whole map or to some parts of it. The points on the map can vary, but the single-point-of-success remains the same, having the potential to kill the interest early on, long before any player gets actually killed-in-game.
There are also games possible where you have a winner because of points (collector) / trees (woodgnome) / territory (territorial games).
It's not possible on every map to defeat an enemy within 4 hours.
Belonging to a different genre, Widelands is overall much better than both of those games, no matter it also suffers from the same issue.
I don't see where it suffers from that issue, or how you could achieve that it not suffers from that issue if that would be the case at all..
The whole game needs a rethink, more types of building, more mangement decisions, more to do than just build armies,
No, it surely doesn't. Though new tribes would be welcome, if they are good and balanced. You can also play different win conditions, you don't have to build armies there. By the way, the trade system is planned, it will not change the game critically but it offers some potential.
I would like to see if there's some consensus on my proposal to force the production of several mildly upgraded soldiers before an advanced one can be made.
You seem to have overlooked that there is no consensus. I'm for making your ideas optional and non-default. Most of Widelands should stay as it is.
- Your analysis of tribe-balancing problems is no more relevant in build 20.
Not true. Atlanteans still can make a supersoldier in 35 minutes,
Really? Have you found a way to do that even though they need shields now?
empire in around one hour and barbarians in well more than one hours. This, the main problem, still stands.
I think you don't know how fast one can make them
It was only at this point that I decided to join the conversation myself, in order to address that overall issue, and not your suggestion. So, I apologize for reviving your thread (and for a while raising its level), and I wish you good luck in keeping it alive (the thread, cause the suggestion is hopeless). @einstein13's sense of humour could help with that.
Yes, I know most people don't care about the argument there. Probably because me and worldsavior are the only people who can use those tactics effectively, so most people won't care about a strategy that is only used by two people. there's not enough interest in the topic. I havo no problem with this, and this thread had died over a week ago.
Actually other people can be interested in the strategy as well and try to apply it.
I don't know if you are a good player in Widelands,
Why is it so hard to know if he is a good player? For me it looks like it's pretty obvious
“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan