Donation

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



Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Google+

Latest Posts

Topic: Implications of conquering enemy military sites reusable

Forums » Player Forums » Game Suggestions » Implications of conquering enemy military sites reusable



Astuur
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-28, 12:08
Posts: 733
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Frankfurt / Germany
Posted at: 2011-02-24, 21:23

There's yet another topic I'd like to address.

I have played some WL games lately - mostly single player ones, and many more about a year ago. I started playing WL when conquering enemy military sites was not yet implemented, and coming back to the game lately I realized that this feature changed a lot for me than I realized at the time as far as tactics go.

I really think it has made the fast and total annihilation of the enemy too easy and has in a way disbalanced defence and offence in the game. Once you are in a position to attack, with a considerable surplus of soldiers, it has become some kind of hit and rush. From that point on you can totally neglect your whole construction sector for the won territories, your road system for transport of wares to the frontier since all that is transported are your own soldiers -- and they walk by themselves. So, by using the enemy's military buildings it is very easy to keep on conquering ground. And that is what you should do in order to win. Defending your territory is a lot harder. If ever you are at a momentary disadvantage when your opponent attacks, your basically done. There is no compensation for the advantage of the aggressor.

In a way, I realize that I had liked the necessity to built my own military buildings on the newly won ground and the planning of tranportation requirements that come with it. It may have made the game slower, but I feel it had also made it richer and was altogether more suitable for a game like Widelands that puts the stress on planning and building - not on Blitzkrieg.

But maybe I am biased here and many people prefer the new playstyle? So give me your thoughts, please!

I admit that conquering the enemy buildings has definetely some advantages in respect to the time immediatly following an attack, but I wish there was the necessity. or at least an incentive for a time of restructuring and rearranging your military in the new territory.

Wouldn't it be nice if "fighting from enemy buildings" would come with some penalty, so that it might be better to build up your own?
A reduced healing rate for such a situation could be good idea. Or perhaps a deduction of the soldiers abilities (HP?) while they stay inside alien architecture?
Or else, conquered alien buildings could not be filled to the max?
Whatever...


Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top Quote
ixprefect
Joined: 2009-02-27, 16:28
Posts: 367
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2011-02-24, 22:59

Note that you can destroy buildings that are under attack to slow the advancement of your enemy - but that is a choice left up to you. You may want to not destroy it, if you think you'll be able to recapture it quickly.


Top Quote
smoku
Joined: 2010-07-19, 11:37
Posts: 15
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2011-02-24, 23:26

The AI is very good at destroying own military buildings and retreating when under siege. face-smile.png


Top Quote
Astuur
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-28, 12:08
Posts: 733
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Frankfurt / Germany
Posted at: 2011-02-27, 09:51

@ ixperfect and smoku
Yes, I agree and know about destroying my own military sites - and I often do it after conquering in order not to offer too easy targets and to concentrate my forces before the counterstrike.
Does ist mean that you do not see any reason to discourage the "avalanche" playstyle that comes from conquering intact buildings?
Or, to put it the other way round: Rewarding a player for building his own military sites is not a favourable idea?


Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top Quote
Nasenbaer
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-21, 20:17
Posts: 825
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2011-02-27, 16:26

Hi,

Astuur wrote: Or, to put it the other way round: Rewarding a player for building his own military sites is not a favourable idea?

it is favourable - for me constructing big military buildings at tactical important points is very important. But even more important is a good defense of those military sites. These are two things the computer player is very bad at at the moment. (All military site placements are mostely random and the computer player does not know anything about sending trained soldiers to the borders...)

Things look different when playing against other human players - there are that many different tactics and winning against another human player is definitely much much harder than against a computer player.

So for me: no reason for changing the current behaviour face-smile.png

Edited: 2011-02-27, 16:35
Top Quote
Astuur
Avatar
Joined: 2009-02-28, 12:08
Posts: 733
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Frankfurt / Germany
Posted at: 2011-02-28, 09:28

Have been playing against humans meanwhile - and lost face-sad.png
Actually, when playing against a human opponent, you profit even more from re-using his military infrastructure, because his placement of buildings has not been random.
So, I still think successfully defending is harder in WL than attacking. But no need to argue. Maybe this is even good for the game.
If at some time many other players think it's disbalanced, it can always be changed then.


Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills.
I am on Win32, have no means to compile, and rely on prefabricated distributions (Thanks to Tino).

Top Quote