Polls

Best Build 21 Screenshot

Log in to vote!

Latest Posts

Topic: More economic?

kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1891
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2020-05-04, 22:56

With my personal experience of the game and with my status as a medium skilled player (hopefully face-smile.png ):

I find myself, at least on big maps, once the basic economy has established, one is just searching for new mineral deposits and keep an eye on mines and manage them. Beside managing battles, managing mines is the the only thing one can do. Personally i find this some kind of boring -> Loose or win is just a matter of finding resources

What do others think about this?


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1734
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: North of Germany
Posted at: 2020-05-04, 22:58

kaputtnik wrote:

With my personal experience of the game and with my status as a medium skilled player (hopefully face-smile.png ):

I find myself, at least on big maps, once the basic economy has established, one is just searching for new mineral deposits and keep an eye on mines and manage them. Beside managing battles, managing mines is the the only thing one can do. Personally i find this some kind of boring -> Loose or win is just a matter of finding resources

What do others think about this?

I disagree. On big maps one has to improve the settlement all the time


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 497
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-05-04, 23:07

I wrote you the most essential trick face-wink.png

also if anone else just likes to play or train pm me

"managing mines is the the only thing one can do" - i completely disagree


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1891
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2020-05-04, 23:15

Ok, my paragraphing was wrong. The main sentence is:

Loose or win is just a matter of finding resources

Is this true?


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 497
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2020-05-04, 23:19

No. It's all about timing and since the maps are build for singleplayer and we dont have competitive multiplayer maps yet - yes you cant try different things


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1646
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 03:23

kaputtnik wrote:

Ok, my paragraphing was wrong. The main sentence is:

Loose or win is just a matter of finding resources

Is this true?

no. it's a matter of outproducing your enemy and killing him.

your scenario would only apply if nobody attacked anybody else ever, and at the end of the game the amouts of soldiers were confronted. which may happen if you are playing a relaxed game (either with an AI or with some friend), but not if you are playing to win.

in fact, we have several tournaments matches on big maps (ice wars, elven forests, the thaw, calvisson) and in no case the game was determined by resources ending.


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1439
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 08:46

I believe this might depend somewhat on the map.

And it depends on the tribe f.e. with amazons the challenge is to squeeze the most out of your space while leaving enough room for their big forests they need.

With Empire you might run into problems with food production if there is not much fish in the map.

With every tribe you need to mange your transportation and Warehouse system which is the most difficult part imho.

One of the changes in AI that got into b21 ist that the AI now is trying to constantly increase their production (it is not very efficient yet as it is only reacting rather then acting and planning but it doesn't stop economic growth so sitting there with nly your basic economy should be more difficult on AI friendly big maps now.


Top Quote
blind3rdeye
Avatar
Joined: 2020-03-26, 08:47
Posts: 46
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 09:57

In terms of managing the economy. I think its often true that the end game has a lot of hunting for new resources, and then establishing a local economy about the new mines etc. That's a major part of what happens in large maps... but it's not the only thing. Another thing that happens is that the balance of resources shifts. Probably the largest shift is that when coal mines start to run dry, charcoal becomes more important - and so a lot more trees are needed. And regardless of what going on with the mines; it is possible to scale up.

...

That said, most of what I'm talking about above probably isn't what wins / loses games anyway. Actually, that reminds me... does anyone have some good multiplayer replays that involve a late-game comeback? Like, one player lost a significant amount of battles and territory, but was then able to hold the line, build up their economy faster than their (larger) opponent, and go on to win. I've only watched a handful of multiplayer matches, but I've never seen that happen.


Top Quote
Tribal-Chief
Avatar
Joined: 2018-12-09, 17:16
Posts: 53
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 10:10

I agree with the fact that WL is not an economic game.

With most economy games there is usually a currency to measure your worth, that is how good your economy is, are you earning more than maintaince costs plus expansion costs? The only real method of measuring your performance in WL is to build weapons and defeat opponents which is more of a measure of your military skill. You end up, if you are none violent, deriving pleasure from exploring a map in peacefull mode or on your own but there is no real economy to manage.

A start was made some years ago to add trading posts, which would mean something more of an economy, but the war mongering (mainly Germans) stick with their national sport. There needs to be more economic decision making in the game. Maintainace costs for all buildings, carriers that only work if supplied with luxury goods, abandoning gold as as ware used for weapons adding copper, tin and silver at least. When you have soldiers deserting due to not being fed and carriers going on strike because they want more furniture then you are starting to get an economy to manage, something that is more interesting than watching two soldiers simulate a fight to the death while thier fellows watch.

It should be possible to play a full game with no military, but the option of soldiers should be left in for those that want it.


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 1439
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2020-05-05, 10:15

blind3rdeye wrote:

That said, most of what I'm talking about above probably isn't what wins / loses games anyway. Actually, that reminds me... does anyone have some good multiplayer replays that involve a late-game comeback? Like, one player lost a significant amount of battles and territory, but was then able to hold the line, build up their economy faster than their (larger) opponent, and go on to win. I've only watched a handful of multiplayer matches, but I've never seen that happen.

I am not sure whther this fulfills your requirement, however my last years tournament match against trimard was running in a way I would have given up (and I already offered this to trimard) and out of a miracle I won
https://www.widelands.org/forum/post/29939/


Top Quote