Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Destroying a military site which is under attack

teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 372
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-01-25, 07:36

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.

What are the options? I personally have mixed feelings about this, and would have hard time choosing between yes and no. On one hand, it is rather unrealistic. On the other hand, Attacker already has many advantages over defender, which is bad.

If dismantle/destroy is allowed, then it would be nice if it could be autotriggered: The player does not have to watch "hot" military buildings, but can concentrate in fixing economy and let the last soldier handle the detonation. However, in some cases it would be better to let the enemy conquer a building: It can be retaken faster. This can be rather important in some situations: Few building spots, hard to establish visual contact to next military building; if one disappears, problems amplify.

A choice where military sites are destroyed/dismantled automatically by default, and player could override that, separately for each building could be an option. Currently, also military site upgrade near defeat is used to achieve same result. A bit messy. Should it be possible to trigger the site to auto-upgrade instead of dismantle/destroy, if the military site is upgradeable?

"always destoy automatically" should be an option in the poll, in addition to "prohibit" and "already perfect".

Changing subject: If we go to the direction of prohibited dismantles/destroys, then should there be other constraints? I think that it should be possible to capture gamekeepers / fish breeders, which of course means that dismantling/destroying them should not be possible in some situations.


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1434
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2020-02-05, 18:53

Another strong argument against forbidding dismantling: If you want to play such a may currently, you can just agree with your opponents about it. Especially if they are AIs face-grin.png

If it gets forbidden, there is no way to play the real Widelands just by agreement face-wink.png

And what would be the point of deciding it by a poll? Any spammer could vote there. And democracy is not always good, just take a look at the USA face-wink.png


“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: 633
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-02-05, 19:30

IMHO whether dismantling and/or destroying a building under attack is allowed is another candidate for a game-setup-screen option. We could have a dropdown with hgame modes:

  • Default

  • Peaceful

  • Destroy conquered milsites instead of conquering

  • Forbid dismantling milsites under attack

But please don't define what the "real Widelands" (strategy vs fairness) is, and please don't get political here either.


Top Quote
stonerl
Avatar
Joined: 2018-07-30, 00:03
Posts: 308
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Earth
Posted at: 2020-02-05, 19:48

Nordfriese wrote:

IMHO whether dismantling and/or destroying a building under attack is allowed is another candidate for a game-setup-screen option. We could have a dropdown with hgame modes:

  • Default

  • Peaceful

  • Destroy conquered milsites instead of conquering

  • Forbid dismantling milsites under attack

+1


Top Quote
Solstice_s_Return
Avatar
Joined: 2020-01-28, 13:24
Posts: 53
Ranking
Likes to be here
Location: Finland
Posted at: 2020-02-05, 21:16

I wouldn't change anything regarding mil site conquering. It so much depends from the situation if the best option is to let enemy conquer it or to burn it down. However, dismantling is so unrealistic that I never choose it when under attack.

I think that military should be more proactive in rearranging itself for protection of the land. This could mean that when there's enemy border discovered, more trained soldiers take places of less trained one by one, thus sending the less trained to periphery areas. Then there could be a single controls bar for how deep this rearrangement zone is and if it is set to a maximum and there's threats on all edges, it might some times mean that no rearrangement happens. Of course it could also be much more complicated with for example defense strength priority order and/or response according to a potential threat level. First of these is a set of colors corresponding to enemy lands from which a player can klick to set them in protection priority order from one to as high as there's opponents. The second version is partially the same, but instead it focuses to known enemy military sites and their combined potential threat level. The latter would make scouts more important too.


Top Quote