Topic: early advanced soldier gameplay balance

Tibor wrote:

dreieck wrote:

Hm.

Observing the discussions on the forum, I see that soldiers are quite important to many.

Although it is statet to be mainly a game about economy and not about military, it seems that the economy is just there to "serve" the military. (Technically, it is a lot about economy, philosophically it ist mainly about military, in my understanding).

I usually don't like the military part -- I like logistics.

I am completely fine how the game is, but I do not like the (felt) discrepancy I mentioned above. Let's call it a military game with a strong focus on economy.

Hm.

+1

I have similar feelings...

Me too ...

Top

Quote

JanO wrote:

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.

I think this is a great idea If one of the win conditions is fulfilled the game ends. For multiplayer games one has to choose wich win conditions should be set for this game.

Top

Quote

dreieck wrote:

Hm.

Observing the discussions on the forum, I see that soldiers are quite important to many.

Although it is statet to be mainly a game about economy and not about military, it seems that the economy is just there to "serve" the military. (Technically, it is a lot about economy, philosophically it ist mainly about military, in my understanding).

I usually don't like the military part -- I like logistics.

I am completely fine how the game is, but I do not like the (felt) discrepancy I mentioned above. Let's call it a military game with a strong focus on economy.

Hm.

I disagree with this statement.
Or maybe better: it is not completely true.

For sure players have main goal of having best soldiers in a short time, but to get it they have to make an economy. How can we balance those two aspects of the game? (military & economy)

Recently I was playing a board game about building machines (Steam Works, https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/143176/steam-works). But we can say in a similar way, that the game was not about building machines, but about gaining "prestige points". Really is it? I think that it depends on point of view AND how the game is balanced. From my point of view, Widelands are mostly military and economy (almost equal) game, but the rules are flexible enough to make it more economy or even only economy game. Example: last tournament.

So why are we talking about soldiers stuff? Because if we make almost perfect balance there, economy aspect will be more important.

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top

Quote

At times I get quite despondent about Widelands. It seems to be getting less about economy and more about the boring bit - soldiers.

For some, perhaps the majority, it seems the aim is to get the first fully trained soldier then the biggest fully trained army and even if the game will last 10, 20 or more hours the end result has been decided in an hour or so. I see no pleasure in that.

Traing workers with experience is getting to be a joke, apart from getting trained workers at the start the amount of training needed is getting lowered all to serve the getting to the fully trained soldier quickest idea. I can understand a desire for balance in getting it possible to fully train any tribe in the same time, but why the shortest time why not pick another number like 3 hours or even 10 hours?

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.

Top

Quote

ypopezios wrote:

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.

That would change the character of Widelands quite a lot, and in a way I very much appreciate

Lack of food sends the soldier back to civilian life (but if he reaches a warehouse, his weapons are saved).

+1

Lack of wage demotes the soldier.

I don´t like the idea of introducing "wages". There is no money in WL, and introducing it would change the game´s character too much in my opinion. On the other hand, "wages" could be paid in iron ingots for lower-level soldiers and gold bars for heroes. I´d like that.

Military buildings store food and wages. Soldiers consume those when their time comes. Therefore, disconnected military buildings cannot sustain their soldiers for long.

Okay, but existing food (and perhaps payment?) should be retained in the building when it´s conquered by another player

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).

-1 for both. It just seems illogical to me that soldiers should lose promotions. Certainly don´t make exceptions for the HQ, as it´s not special in any way; and not all starting conditions have (and don´t need!) an HQ.

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:

Unless for defense, a soldier leaves a military building only after eating (and maybe only after healing, which may consume more food).

+1 for forcing players to keep their economy in proportion to their army size.
+1 for letting healing to consume food. That way, fighting will increase the maintenance cost too.
Not sure if I understood correctly – Do you mean to forbid to send soldiers away or reduce capacity while they´re injured? -1, the possibility to do it at any time is important and must be preserved.

Top

Quote