[licker]

Originally posted by apoger:
It's my game philosophy that complexity should only be added when it adds to the enjoyment of the game.

What we have to ask ourselves is:
Does having some "flavor" from the seasons add enough enjoyment to counter the hassle of having to pay attention to seasons in order to optomize your magic creatures.

Honestly I don't think so.

I also don't see any additional benefit from the slight dominion shifts due to seasons.

What I do see is arguments that four seasons make a year and thus four turns is a year and [blah blah blah] isn't realistic in a year. "This % of growth isn't realistic in a year". "My troops shouldn't have to spend all of three months to pillage a province". None of this was an issue when using "turns". Having generic turns allowes suspension of disbelief for many things. By declaring 1 turn = 1 season you have backed yourself into a design corner and must now justify things according to time.

It's only my opinion, but my opinion is that seasons added little if anything to the game, and created perception issues that haunt your game design. I think it was a bad choice.

Heh, believe me, I agree 100% with your philosophy

I'm just not sure that seasons are such a complication that they are worth worring about. Sure they have an effect, but it is apparently minor, or it allows (forces, whatever floats your boat) you to plan your attacks when using seasonally affected troops better. That is a change, but it's hardly gamebreaking, infact it could be looked at as a balancer for the seasonally affected nations and troops. I dunno, you can like it or not of course, but its not a game breaker.

Anyway, why is it normal for one to assume that the 'months' on a Dom2 world are the same as earth months? Why is it normal to assume that the abstracted 'realities' of Dom have to fit in with Earth-like realities? 1 season = 1 turn (or is it three?) is true, but who's to say what the length of one season is? We can bicker about this all you want, but in the end the analysis needs to be based on how a new game element affects game mechanics, not on how well you or I or anyone else can rationalize the choice of words...

Of course you have addressed the issues of balance and why you don't like them, but the 'realism' sword cuts both ways

-edit... Bleh... no I didn't read Gandalf's post before I posted mine

[ November 05, 2003, 17:27: Message edited by: licker ]