patch 2.08 is out

SurvivalistMerc · #1 February 23rd, 2004, 08:03 PM

I still like the auto-kill of paralyzed creatures if they're still paralyzed at the end of combat. But I concede that I may be biased against supercombatants. And paralyze-autokill is one of the few simple counters to the SC strategy.

I think I'm going to start a poll to let folks say what they think should happen to paralyzed creatures at turn 50.

Taqwus · #2 February 23rd, 2004, 08:11 PM

Auto-retreat can also mean auto-death depending on what happened in neighboring provinces and how the attackers got there.
It would make a certain degree of sense to have a more detailed pursuit model comparing mobility, ranged firepower et al -- for instance, cases where one or both sides have flight available -- but the presence of magic really, really complicates things e.g. does a unit with intrinsic flight such as an Elemental Queen of Air have an advantage over a unit that could fly just because a handy air mage can cast Flight on it?

#3 February 23rd, 2004, 08:30 PM

I believe a poll would do nothing, as the debate has degenerated. Maybe you should put up a poll on what you'd rather have the Dev's work on and let them make the categories.

SurvivalistMerc · #4 February 23rd, 2004, 09:24 PM

Zen,

That's a good idea. Because we only have two overworked devs, and they can't do everything at once.

I did start the poll anyway. My main reason for that was that only a few of the folks on the board have participated in the discussion. The participants obviously aren't going to come to an agreement, but if there is widespread agreement in the community that what presently happens is functionally acceptable in the case of paralyzed units...then it doesn't really matter what a few folks say...whether I am on the majority or minority side of the argument.

You are right that the debate has degenerated. There don't appear to be new ideas or justifications on either side.

Your what should the devs work on next poll is really something the devs would have to start in order for them to make the categories.

Gandalf Parker · #5 February 24th, 2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
That's a good idea. Because we only have two overworked devs, and they can't do everything at once.

Im not completely sure but in this case we might be talking about ONE overworked Dev. Johan K seems to be most of the programming. Kristoffer O seems to do most of the artwork and designing things like new nations and units. Johan O is a brother and helps out alot (such as playing goalee here blocking player shots at the devs). There is porbably some overlap but certain things we want look like they end up in one lap or the other.

Osium · #6 February 26th, 2004, 06:03 AM

I would be in favor of an auto retreat, however I don't see why both sides have to retreat. The explaination given to satisfy those who want such an explaination so as not to ruin their immersion is simple. The attackers see they are not winning, or that victory is not possible, being far from friendly lands and supplies it makes sense they would retreat home to rethink/plan a new invasion. The defence being in its home land has no need to retreat, they stay put.

Gandalf Parker · #7 February 26th, 2004, 03:50 PM

That would make sense to me, and I think matches most games also. If it looks like there will not be a win in X rounds then it is usually the attacker which pulls back.

There is also a scripting ability for "5 actions then retreat" which should remain a useful function. An automatic end of combat should always be a less desireable choice than a scripted retreat (which I usually think of as "if the battle goes this long then pull back" type of comand)

[ February 26, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]