Topic: Dismantling military sites under attack
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425  Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-16, 10:53 UTC+1.0
Look! There is the enemy outpost! Attack! Hah, the enemies are weak. We are going to win! Win! Victory ahead! .. That is the last defender. We are winning! .. oh, what? The enemies are planning to send a builder to dismantle this building? Maybe we should not conquer it after all, if they dismantle it. Let's go home. 
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425 Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-16, 10:56 UTC+1.0
I know widelands is not trying to be a realistic warfare simulator, but still I would like to prevent dismantling military buildings under attack. This would alter gameplay only slightly, if burning would still be posible.
Top
Quote
|
|
SirVer
Joined:
2009-02-19, 15:18 UTC+1.0
Posts: 1442  One Elder of Players Location: Germany - Munich |
Posted at:
2014-03-16, 12:25 UTC+1.0
it makes very little difference if you dismantle or burn a burning under attack usually. At this point, build materials are rarely an issue. And I am very fond of the strategic possibilities of enhancing a building under attack which can sometimes make a slight difference. I see no point in changing the rules except for realism - which is not a good game design strategy anyways. Especially changing the ruleset for buildings under attack increases complexity without adding much imho.
Edited:
2014-03-16, 12:25 UTC+1.0
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo Topic Opener
Joined:
2012-01-30, 09:42 UTC+1.0
Posts: 425 Tribe Member |
Posted at:
2014-03-16, 14:33 UTC+1.0
If you see added strategic value, then the case is settled: Let's do nothing.
Top
Quote
|