civilisation 1 & 2
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Ahhh... a kindler, gentler psychopath...
uhuh I didn''t even think about that one ... Civ is jsut a management/diplomacy game for me. Do you know it''s a damn BOARD game originally ? And much better than the computer game IMO
What I meant is a RTS where you could actually have diplomacy that matters more than "hey! I need 500 wood, mmm-kay ?"
I didn''t even think about that one ... Civ is jsut a management/diplomacy game for me. Do you know it''s a damn BOARD game originally ? And much better than the computer game IMO What I meant is a RTS where you could actually have diplomacy that matters more than "hey! I need 500 wood, mmm-kay ?"
What about being able to steal your opponents equiptment, or if equiptment wasn''t totally destroyed on the battle field and you could collect it and repair it. Maybe its time for a new thread on this?!
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
What cheeses me off most is where you build up a base at one location in one mission and it covers 60% of the land and is raping the worlds resources faster than...well, we don''t need to go into rude analogies, and then when you come back to that same spot for a later mission you are back to two houses and a dude with a shovel.
quote: Original post by Quantum
yes, thats where my "save empire" option would be useful
Sorry, i skipped you''re earlier post. You know i was think along these lines as well a couple of days ago. I was thinking of an online situation where you establish a knock-out sytle stucture of competition. So when you beat one opponent you keep your empire and resource and start the next battle with these. You''re opponent would do the same, this goes on until the knockout is complete. The last battle would be pretty huge. This leads onto the other thread i started called "money competition rts''s". Check it out
I love Game Design and it loves me back.
Our Goal is "Fun"!
quote: Original post by Maitrek
What cheeses me off most is where you build up a base at one location in one mission and it covers 60% of the land and is raping the worlds resources faster than...well, we don''t need to go into rude analogies, and then when you come back to that same spot for a later mission you are back to two houses and a dude with a shovel.
Yeah, this is an example of bad continuity, but it raises a problem. If I finish a campaign with a ton of killer units (lets say 12 fully upgraded battlecruisers in Starcraft) then what should I start with the next map/mission? And if you tell me, "Uh, you can only take one BC with you" then we''re right back to the same situation.
I don''t think there''s much of a way around this as long as the typical upgrade/tech tree philosophy is used, because that''s part of the game. (Be happy to be wrong about this, tho''
) --------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham
Sorry, i skipped you''re earlier post. You know i was think along these lines as well a couple of days ago. I was thinking of an online situation where you establish a knock-out sytle stucture of competition. So when you beat one opponent you keep your empire and resource and start the next battle with these. You''re opponent would do the same, this goes on until the knockout is complete. The last battle would be pretty huge. This leads onto the other thread i started called "money competition rts''s". Check it out
I guess your opponent would always need to be roughly equal. This could be somewhat challenging, because you wouldn''t be able to play against just anybody (like you''d do on Battlenet).
Although, you could adopt the kind of ritualistic battles that were popular throughout the ancient world. So no matter how big your empire was, you''d agree only to put so many guys on the battlefield. If this was part of some great code of war then everyone would have to obey and Davids could fight Goliaths fairly.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham
What about being able to steal your opponents equiptment, or if equiptment wasn''t totally destroyed on the battle field and you could collect it and repair it. Maybe its time for a new thread on this?!
Yes, scavenging is cool. (Could make a game very Mad Max like
) I think the Mechcommander game used this. It''s a fun mechanic, because you''re rewarding for fighting well without destroying your enemy too badly. I like it!--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
I don''t think there''s much of a way around this as long as the typical upgrade/tech tree philosophy is used, because that''s part of the game. (Be happy to be wrong about this, tho'' )
It depends on the game. In Starcraft, you weren''t taking the same force to different areas; you were commanding different forces. So it makes sense that you''d start with different units in different scenarios.
But of course there''s plenty of strategy games in which supposedly you''re commanding the same forces, but they get reset each scenario. This makes sense as far as gameplay goes, since the challenge is to build up your forces and attack the enemy, while being attacked yourself the whole time. But it would be nice if you can somehow transfer forces.
~CGameProgrammer( );
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
