Skyward Collapse 1.005 "Player's Choice" Released!

[chemical_art]

The problem with sieges are a symptom of mythological creatures. They aren't particular good at wrecking buildings, they are just strong and can be placed right next to a enemy city.

It's part of a much broader situation, where a lot of mythological creature's problems arise because they can be placed anywhere. Perhaps that needs to be examined.

[x4000]

I think there would be open revolt if mythologicals couldn't be placed anywhere, honestly; they're the one tool that you can direct that accurately.  However, the bonuses that some of them had against buildings (on the greek side) are at least gone now.

[Mánagarmr]

Point penalty actually sounded like a brilliant idea.

[Mick]

Maybe siege units should just get a damage bonus against bandit keeps in particular.

[chemical_art]

Point penalty actually sounded like a brilliant idea.

What if points that mythological units earn are reduced? Would help reduce the incentive to use just mythologicals.

[Mick]

Reducing points myth units give sounds interesting (not necessarily saying I like it...)

It kinda means placing myth units is like placing your own bandits (only they are focused on attacking just one side).

Nerfing myth units too hard though would severely reduce the chaos factor of the game. I think the player simply needs more incentive to pump out the non-myth, instead of nerfing the myth directly.

Maybe a "cost" of the myth could be a resource that is built up based on how long non-myth on on the board. Basically human military because a resource-gathering type of placement of their own. So in order to really pump out myth units, you HAVE to have a constant stream of non-myth in order to support it. Drying up your human military will severely hamper your ability to pump out the fun stuff.

EDIT: A downside I could think of is that the player might just block off a large human military somewhere like a herd of cows... trapped.. bloodthirsty cows..

[x4000]

Having a new resource type that is built up over time by having human units on the board sounds... pretty brilliant, actually.  "Human energy" or something.  And then adding new human energy costs to the mytholigcals.

I'm wary a slight bit about doing score changes based on mythological kills, although it's certainly possible.  Kills By Red could be Kills By Red Humans and Kills By Red Mythologicals instead.  And the humans give many more points than the mythologicals.

If humans are required to be on the board in sufficient numbers, then a lot of the issues with mythologicals being too easy to spam really get mitigated, because of space requirements in towns.

[Penumbra]

  "Human energy" or something. 

Prayers? Faith?  The myths can't exist without there being people to believe in them!

[rustybotgames]

My opinion on this:
- Placing mountains/lakes:
In my first games I also exploited this (especially after placing a labyrinth ). With 1.03 I had to adjust my playstyle, and it was great. Smiting can serve a similar job but is comparably expensive. Maybe make mountains/lakes more expensive or an optional difficulty setting.
- Bandit Keeps:
Didn't give me a headache in any way. Personally I found it more interesting with keeps around that take some effort to destroy.

[chemical_art]

One problem with units on board is that when chokes are create d then the number of units on board rises dramatically. I dont think chokes need a buf ;)f .

What if instead the resource is when humans are killed? This would buff non chokes.

[x4000]

- Placing mountains/lakes:
In my first games I also exploited this (especially after placing a labyrinth ). With 1.03 I had to adjust my playstyle, and it was great. Smiting can serve a similar job but is comparably expensive. Maybe make mountains/lakes more expensive or an optional difficulty setting.

What are your thoughts on (a few posts back) the suggested changes to making the mountains and lakes not be abject blockers, but instead huge movement speed reducers only.

- Bandit Keeps:
Didn't give me a headache in any way. Personally I found it more interesting with keeps around that take some effort to destroy.

Hopefully with the minotaur and chimera having their building bonuses removed, this will remain _more_ challenging without being frustrating for others.

One problem with units on board is that when chokes are create d then the number of units on board rises dramatically. I dont think chokes need a buf ;)f .

What if instead the resource is when humans are killed? This would buff non chokes.

That's a good point.  Now we're back to soul harvesting, though.   Which I'm fine with, really; it encourages destruction, which is great.  And it's something that we could make only work for red and blue, potentially.  ACTUALLY, when a red human dies then 1 soul goes to the red faction.  Red building dies, it's 5 souls to the red faction (let's say).  Ditto on blue.  Then the souls are a per-faction resource, and something that encourages warfare (even letting bandits come get you).

[Mánagarmr]

  "Human energy" or something. 

Prayers? Faith?  The myths can't exist without there being people to believe in them!

I was literally thinking the same thing. "Faith" sounds pretty spot on as far as setting goes.

[x4000]

I've put up a new thread here that pulls out the potential action items I see from this thread so far: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13238.0.html

[Teal_Blue]

from X4000:
That's probably a good idea for a way to differentiate some of the basic military units more anyhow, which we're always looking to do.  Maybe one barracks unit per side could gain the mountainwalk ability, and perhaps the really slow and direct-attack siege units like battering ram and trojan horse could also get it.  Anyone have any gut reactions to this?

I would say you have it about perfect!    Thank you for leaving the mountains and lakes and working it so they don't wall off 'everything'.   

-Teal

p.s.  I know i'm just a casual player and not hard core, but i really appreciate your doing this kind of thing. THanks!!

[Teal_Blue]

That would be easier to understand, but it seems like a band-aid.

I think if you want players to build siege units to knock down buildings, you should balance things so the player thinks: "I want to knock down that building... better build siege units!"

If you have to provide bonus points for using siege units, it's basically admitting that siege units are not the greatest option for doing that.

I would like to propose a smallish change that i think might address that, if each unit has a bonus against certain other units, such as siege against buildings, soldiers against archers (at a distance), archers against soldiers (up close), mythologicals against bandits or bandit keeps... etc. So in effect each unit has a nemesis that works best against that unit. It is straight forward and learnable so that players will know that siege has best attack against buildings, know that archers work best against soldiers that are at a distance and so forth.

By narrowing the units down to a 'best' one vs. one relationship then that becomes not a 'have to' case, because what if i have to use soldiers against soldiers, or mythologicals against buildings, or whatever, i still have that ability (especially if its what i have available) but its just not the 'best' solution or the strongest attack possible. In this way strategies could be maximized, but still open.

Just my opinion,
-Teal