Latest Posts

Topic: Destroying a military site which is under attack

mxb2001
Avatar
Joined: 2019-05-20, 18:49
Posts: 52
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-01-18, 01:24

Perhaps change the basic game mechanics so that mil. buildings can't be conquered. That feature makes it very easy to rampage over a defender.


Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 609
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-01-18, 10:16

I like the system the way it is and don´t see the need to change it so drastically.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1412
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2020-01-18, 19:25

mxb2001 wrote:

That feature makes it very easy to rampage over a defender.

Especially when the defender is the AI. And then you have to manage all those tiny buildings which you conquer from the AI, that can be annoying...


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 609
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-01-19, 12:05

This is a very nice feature which is disliked by many people. Option time? Let's have an option "conquer defeated milsites" in the game setup screen so people can choose whether they want this or not (in MP games, this would be selected by the host for all players)

Edited: 2020-01-19, 12:05

Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1412
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2020-01-19, 15:23

Nordfriese wrote:

Option time? Let's have an option "conquer defeated milsites" in the game setup screen so people can choose whether they want this or not (in MP games, this would be selected by the host for all players)

Very good idea. Especially AI matches will make much more sense thanks to this option face-smile.png

I'd vote for: Default is "no conquering".


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
stonerl
Avatar
Joined: 2018-07-30, 00:03
Posts: 305
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Earth
Posted at: 2020-01-21, 16:33

So instead of conquering, the building would be destroyed?


Top Quote
stonerl
Avatar
Joined: 2018-07-30, 00:03
Posts: 305
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Earth
Posted at: 2020-01-21, 16:36

Regarding whether an attacked building should be allowed to be destroyed or dismantle by the defender, I'll set up a poll after the current one is closed.


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1784
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2020-01-21, 16:52

stonerl wrote:

Regarding whether an attacked building should be allowed to be destroyed or dismantle by the defender, I'll set up a poll after the current one is closed.

Please add an option 'Don't know' or 'abstinent for voting' if you do so face-smile.png


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1412
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2020-01-24, 21:27

stonerl wrote:

So instead of conquering, the building would be destroyed?

Dismantled, so one doesn't have to do it.

stonerl wrote:

Regarding whether an attacked building should be allowed to be destroyed or dismantle by the defender, I'll set up a poll after the current one is closed.

Well, what would be the point of such a poll if there will be a new option which makes it impossible to conquer buildings?


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1097
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-01-25, 01:26

Basically I am with our former chieftain SirVer, that having an option is only the easy way out of a discussion and we should avoid having to many options. In the recent past we violated his memory in this particular area quite often.
reason for avoidance should be clear anyhow: with every option you multiply the particular ways in which widelands could run. And normally you have to test them all to get to a positive review of a branch. which is by now already impossible due to available permutations. So I would vote to have it one way or the other and almost no options even if this means heavy discussion. In a vast majority of threads heavy discussion led to enlightment and common sense if rock solid reasons were provided for a change, so we shouldn't avoid that discussion but rather prepare some really good arguments for our case to convince any sceptics.
Just my 5 cent.
my vote still is don't change anything.


Top Quote