Depth of this game?

[x4000]

Oh -- and on the tooltip for a red town in general it would be something like "Blue Hatred for this town: {X}"  So I think that would be a lot clearer than the way I explained it before.  The other side starts hating a town they can't damage more and more.  That plays into the theme of the sides being bloodyminded more, you know?

[Professor Paul1290]

What about calling it "Unity" instead of "Hatred" or something like that.

The idea could be that if the people aren't united in building a war machine to go against a foe (the other guys) they cause "Unrest".

[x4000]

There again, that just doesn't really mean anything to me if it's not explained to me in great depth.  If I am a new player and a game tells me "Complacency: X" or "Unity: X" I'm going to not pay much attention to those numbers because they sound like a sideshow.  Versus "Unrest" or "Rage" or something more obviously negative gets my attention immediately.  I'm not saying Unrest is the only word I'll use, but nothing else has yet really been close to being better in my opinion.

I bet folks would have argued about AI Progress, too.

[Professor Paul1290]

There again, that just doesn't really mean anything to me if it's not explained to me in great depth.  If I am a new player and a game tells me "Complacency: X" or "Unity: X" I'm going to not pay much attention to those numbers because they sound like a sideshow.  Versus "Unrest" or "Rage" or something more obviously negative gets my attention immediately.  I'm not saying Unrest is the only word I'll use, but nothing else has yet really been close to being better in my opinion.

I bet folks would have argued about AI Progress, too.

Very true. It's weird trying to make people notice those numbers initially.

[Mick]

Yeah, I'm not saying complaceny would mean a lot to a player if it wasn't explained to them, but the idea behind the term seems fitting. Basically the folks of that town are getting way too pacifistic because the harsh realities of war and conflict aren't at their front door. They live in a safe bubble and don't tame the wild around them, hence the proliferation of bandits and monsters and other nasty things.

[x4000]

I just don't find that as thematically compelling.  I like the social unrest idea better, maybe it's just a personal thing.  Basically "those guys over there are living in the lap of luxury away from the battle lines, and I freaking hate them for it."  It fits thematically so well, because why are these guys warring so much anyhow?  This helps tie that idea up in a really nice little bow (jealousy is the roof of all the evil here), and so on.

I guess Unrest could be Jealousy instead, but that feels a little strange.  Woe is strange too, but in a funny way.  Jealousy just seems strange, so I'd prefer something else.

[keith.lamothe]

If the idea of Unrest is basically "if the Red and Blue guys don't get to fight each other enough then some of them run away and become Yellow" (conceptually) then I think that's basically what I'm looking for.

The "if blue+red<yellow" thing is to kind of corral the player into actually needing to deal with yellow as otherwise we can just "run away" from them faster than they can destroy our towns.  There are other ways of handling that, though.  Let me know when you think you've "solved" that strategy and I'll see if it still works

To clarify: at what difficulty should "simple cheese" strategies like "just build a line of towns away from the origin on each side" not result in a win?

On the term, I guess "Desertion" is the actual result that hurts you, but perhaps isn't a good word for the cause.

[x4000]

I think that Easy should not be much harder than it is now, although a little more in general; the super cheese like that really shouldn't be possible beyond sandbox.  The others, would ramp up from there.

[keith.lamothe]

I think that Easy should not be much harder than it is now, although a little more in general; the super cheese like that really shouldn't be possible beyond sandbox.  The others, would ramp up from there.

So if I can just build two lines away from the origin on Easy 1 and reach the end of the game without losing that would be a balance problem you'd want resolved before 1.0?

[Mick]

Well whatever it is called I really do like the idea. It feels a lot like AI-progress which is a mechanic I like. I could see people building different strategies for high-unrest and low-unrest style games.

It makes short-term objectives much more clear. "My unrest is starting to climb up because Sherwood is too safe, I need to do something about that."

[x4000]

I think that Easy should not be much harder than it is now, although a little more in general; the super cheese like that really shouldn't be possible beyond sandbox.  The others, would ramp up from there.

So if I can just build two lines away from the origin on Easy 1 and reach the end of the game without losing that would be a balance problem you'd want resolved before 1.0?

Not necessarily.  I'm fine if you can do that on Easy, but I'm not fine with there being no consequence for that.  Heck, if you can do that on Expert and survive the storm that unleashes, that's probably fine as well -- so long as it's sufficiently insanely hard.  Like those people who play AI War on difficulty 6 and take every planet in a 120 planet map, over 200 hours of play.  That's totally counter to the intended game flow, and insane, but it's not broken; they had a heck of a time doing that, and the game was intense and crazy in just a different way than usual.  I love that.

So if you like having a pocket full of bees, and want to play while you do, go right ahead.  It's the "no consequence" and "doesn't make it any harder, is just straight cheese" that bothers me.

Well whatever it is called I really do like the idea. It feels a lot like AI-progress which is a mechanic I like. I could see people building different strategies for high-unrest and low-unrest style games.

It makes short-term objectives much more clear. "My unrest is starting to climb up because Sherwood is too safe, I need to do something about that."

Awesome.   Nobody but Keith had commented on more than the name yet, so I'm relieve to hear those are your feelings.

[keith.lamothe]

Not necessarily.  I'm fine if you can do that on Easy, but I'm not fine with there being no consequence for that.  Heck, if you can do that on Expert and survive the storm that unleashes, that's probably fine as well -- so long as it's sufficiently insanely hard.

To clarify I mean literally just building towns in straight lines away from the origin, not paying any attention at all to what the units on the map do or making any effort to impact them.  The only variation/choice-making would be in how much of each town to fill out before building the next one.

Is it a problem if that works ("works" meaning "without losing") on Easy 1 or is Medium 1 or something higher the "no cheese like that beyond this point" line?

[x4000]

I'm torn. Some folks just want to dink around.

[Pepisolo]

Just throwing a word into the mix -- Envy. Still thinking about the idea... initial thoughts are ... pretty good. Although, I really don't think I've played enough yet to have a great opinion on the matter.

My main problem so far with this game is that I don't seem to find building much fun. Watching the dudes scrap it out gives me the most pleasure and I try to do the minimum building work in order to get to this action ASAP. Maybe, that's just me, though. I play in a very casual style.

[Mick]

I'm torn. Some folks just want to dink around.

Isn't that what sandbox is for?