| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Createure 
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:27 |
 Kumomoto wrote:
That strikes me as being really realistic! And you shouldn't be able to get a ton of resupply through a large siege either... So I think these are quite in line with reality, no? |
I think the Heart of Darkness really brings this game in line with reality. ;) Ummm... are we trying to make this game realistic or fun? 
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 15:50 |
Createure wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
That strikes me as being really realistic! And you shouldn't be able to get a ton of resupply through a large siege either... So I think these are quite in line with reality, no? |
I think the Heart of Darkness really brings this game in line with reality. ;)
Ummm... are we trying to make this game realistic or fun?
|
You've never seen a Heart of Darkness before? ;) I'm all for magic, but in the absence of said magic, doesn't it make sense to be as realistic as possible? If you want to drop a magical resource teleportation spell I'd have no issues per se, but shouldn't we aim to stick to realism in the absence of magic? (or am I being too anal?)
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 16:24 |
Ander wrote:
Anjire wrote:
As far as the actual amount a flat rate would apply, I would think it to be somewhere between 5-10 per resource amount per level of building. |
The problem with that is, a 5-farm city with maxed out farms can currently get 100 food (1% of 10,070) from a 5 farm sovereignty tile per level of sovereignty. If this is to be changed to 5-10 per resource, they would get 25-50 food per level. More starvation!
They would have to give atleast 20 per resource amount per level of building so as not to disrupt the current situation. If that is the case, people would start claiming sovereignty for other basic resources as well. This would make sovereignty an attractive option for smaller towns too. |
Thanks Ander for pointing this out. I agree that the output of a flat rate should be in line with what we can already obtain with the current sovereignty mechanics.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 16:50 |
Regarding realism...Illy is no more of a realistic simulation than Chess is.
In terms of "major siege", I was actually contemplating dragging T2 siege through a target using the Attack Stratagem rather than the Siege Stratagem.
|
|
Nesse
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 406
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 19:46 |
How about ... replace taxes with the philosophers stone? Make it possible to convert an amount of resources to gold - obviously applying mana and research in the process. Would remove any possiblity for "exploits" by running food or other resources negative to get high tax incomes.
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 20:12 |
Nesse wrote:
How about ... replace taxes with the philosophers stone?Make it possible to convert an amount of resources to gold - obviously applying mana and research in the process. Would remove any possiblity for "exploits" by running food or other resources negative to get high tax incomes. |
that would be an exploit by itself 
|
|
Selwyn
New Poster
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 25
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 21:30 |
|
what about the newer players that followed all the rules and made good decisions as to picking locations? do you want to penalize them? was bad enough they were all left in limbo for months and were misled by devs announcements ? seems like a lot of newer players paying high price to keep ya all happy :(
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 23:54 |
Selwyn wrote:
what about the newer players that followed all the rules and made good decisions as to picking locations? do you want to penalize them? was bad enough they were all left in limbo for months and were misled by devs announcements ? seems like a lot of newer players paying high price to keep ya all happy :(
|
How??? Its the more advanced accounts that will loose out the most, however I feel that leveling the playing field as they are doing is the best thing.
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 00:00 |
Darkwords wrote:
Selwyn wrote:
what about the newer players that followed all the rules and made good decisions as to picking locations? do you want to penalize them? was bad enough they were all left in limbo for months and were misled by devs announcements ? seems like a lot of newer players paying high price to keep ya all happy :(
|
How???
Its the more advanced accounts that will loose out the most, however I feel that leveling the playing field as they are doing is the best thing.
|
+1
Perhaps Selwyn can clarify how he feels the new players are being penalized or will be penalized by these changes.
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 09:56 |
By the way what is actually happening? to me it sounds like the GM's are going to change it to what they were going to do before, iron out the glitches in what they were going to do then change it yet again?
If it's going to be changed again how about instead telling us what the ultimate system will be and put a gold income cap on cities to fix the food exploit now? certainly not a perfect fix but far better than implementing 2 different income/food/tax systems
|
|
Tweet
Progress Update