• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Neutral

About Champloo13

  • Rank
  1.   Don't know what it has to do with eurogames, I played shit tons of Paradox games, if they can be considered "eurogame", either way, we're obviuosly fundamentally differ in our understanding of "choices and richness", for me slots and such is an atavism of board games, and I just don't see how it helps anything except as a balancing band-aid, unplausible and unrealistic and unintuitive, simply lame-ass mechanic/feature, imho - the definition of "gimmick".    How exactly slots provide choises and freedom? I just can't understand that.      This made zero sence to me, so limited fixed amount of slots - isn't a restricted limitation? But  "plausible logistics based rules could create tactically/strategically meaningful choices" - is a "shallow limitation"??? HOW EXACTLY???      Not possible in ur head? Or not possible as a game feature?       I didn't say that - "emergency, deploy police" and I wasn't implying it either. I said - "...tie recruitment to amount of pop in a given province...", elaborating further, other features could be interconnected here, like again the amount of control, supply+logistics could be connected with pop state, things like loyalty, happiness, that you would need to have anyway, they can be balancing the "deployment/movement/stationing" mechanic" by intuitive/plausible limits that emerge from interconnecting elements/features mentioned as an example from top of my head.       Simple really, like it works in a real life,   "mobilization/demobilization" mechanic, for example if recruitment/deployment takes x amount of time, then lets say that recruitment incorporates things like training your men(police academy, military training), then they become reserve force that you can "mobilize", the number will be in this case naturally limited by resources you have(pop,infra.,time,etc), once demobilized - they return to "reserve force" either back in the "native province" or into the "local pool" and cost a lot less to sustain than mobilizied forces, maybe an option as well to demobilize completely and remove them from a "pool of reserve forces",  this is the simplest  I could think of, while trying to stay plausible/intuitive and avoid overuse of arbitrary abstract rules.     Short: pop+resource ->recruitment+training=reserve force/demobilized -> active duty/mobilized    Mobilization/demobilization is  actually a good idea imho, especially if time becomes a factor, in this case planning ahead and having a strategy will be important, since you'd have to think ahead to be able "to be in the right place at the right time", which I think is one of the main game mechanic in this case, so everything that adds to it imho is good, like infrastructure and logistics and other things of that nature.
  2.     I don't see how abstract, unplausible limitations provide more choices, what they certainly provide is another arbitrary rule to learn for a player(complication) and another balancing headache for the developer, it's my personal opinion though, I might be wrong ofc.     I tried to argue how plausible logistics based rules could create tactically/strategically meaningful choices without resorting to band-aids in form of outright abstract limitations, and so far I haven't seen arguments that would convince me as a potential player that  mechanic you're proposing(made up limits) is fun.      - that's fine I guess, try to find a screenshot of another game or what have you to illustrate it more clearly, if you mean deploy as recruitment, than yes, it seems fine.  - ok  - Limits on amount of troops could be done plausibly as a natural limiting factor of supply mechanic, as it's done in myriad of games, I think it will be a lot more realistic if this limitation would emerge naturally as an effect of supply+logistics mechanic. This way imho you can kill 2 targets with one shot - familliar/intuitive on one hand and realistic and simple on the other, as well as avoiding abstract limits and at least adding to realism and freedom of choises imho. I'm for plausible mechanics that balance the game rather than abstract rules.         Tbh I think it won't do, too complicated, too abstract.  If you have pop in a game and I think you need to, you can tie recruitment to amount of pop in a given province, depending on the amount of control you have maybe? Deploying as in moving could be tied to province infrastructure, depending on things like airports, roads. This obvioulsy leads to having control of a province reflect the infrastructure objects being taken, in other words - 10% could mean peacefull protests without rebels/protesters taking hold of important infrastructure objects(occupy wallstreet), and at say 30% rebels can say occupy some goverment building or logistics/media infrastructure and at a 100% you get Kiev, Maidan. As well as each object lost leads to a certain consequence, like losing airport prevents you to deploy forces quickly this way, losing admin buildings may lead to inability to recruit or supply troops adequately and so on. This as well obviously leads to being able to deploy units not just all in a province, but to deploy them on certain objects, as lets say sending army to a city may have negative effects and you might be better off sending them to objects outside of city centre, say airports, ports and so on and reserve police for that if situation doesnt require army.
  3. V     Still it aint the reason imho to castrate the game, I'd rather try for a workaround, then to simply cut away at freedom of choice. The zerg mechanic can be balanced in many ways, supply for example and other plausible "deterrents", intuitive and simple features interconnected with logistics. Lets say moving and stationing troops past a certain amount gives a penalty, like attrition or smtng, plenty of ways to balance it naturally imho.      Try to correct the problem graphically, don't rush, look at games with stacks, try different ideas, but again don't butcher da freedom because of this.     Edit: just wanned to add, that if you are facing problems like that, imho always avoid arbitrary limitations and overly abstract mechanics in attempts to balance, in this case it's a band-aid, that will cause lotsa problems and will make the game lot less intuitive/simple, a game which can be easily decoded and "cookie-cut" and forgotten.
  4.    Plausible logistics not only change the way you deploy units, it's also plays  a natural balancing role by limiting, say the amount of troops you can place/move to/in any given province, it creates  operational space for tactical decisions at least for a few turns ahead. Plus you can avoid arbitrary limitations and excessive abstraction that makes the game unnecessarily complicated by loading it with a bunch of arbitrary rules, I'd rather go with intuitive simplistic realism in form of logistics.   What you think about the 4 slots for player units? Note it's consistent & compatible with the rest of the game (drag & drop mechanic)... - I don't like it, what's the point of this limitation? So you can't drop too many? It's an outright blatant limitation, I'd rather wanna see more meaningful balancing mechanics instead. Imho overuse of abstract rules can create a headache later on in attempts to balance it.
  5.    This is the biggest core "problem" here imho. I don't know why do you insist on "unplausible" as in unrealistic way of moving units(sorta whackamole), why not make a simple and intuitive logistics representation? it could be simplified and might as well actually be easier for players to pick up, as well as offering more meaningful tactical  choices, rather than make up totally arbitrary rules, which might lead to further balancing issues even at this scope.         If there is infrastructure, it begs things like airports, tv stations, administrative/governmental buildings, taking control of these leads to different logical effects. Here if you connect moving units and infrastructure in a meaningful way, some interesting mechanics can emerge, like if rebel took control of a local airport, you can no longer "teleport" there and will have to move on the land, as well as maybe introduce building, like building airports in outer provinces, or tv stations if you wanna increase your support and so on.
  6. Early game Civ-like game

        This sounds interesting, making things more flexible, in Civ founding a city is a very simplistic mechanic, you're basically building a clolonist which is a moving city which can be placed somewhere and will grow depending primararily on the nearest tile composition, the more realistic approach imho would be closer to what Technogoat suggested and rather than making city building just a matter of building and moving a unit, it could be done in steps and feel like a real undertaking, starting from a nomad settlement and slowly growing into a metropolis.     To implement things like that so they wouldnt end up as gimmicks that sound nice on paper but don't add any depth, imho some evolution in the design must occur, probably by implementing sandbox elements and cutting out abstract rulesests in favor of intuitive/realistic mechanics, for example population can be handled more realistically by dividing it into  "general population" and manpower which can be allocated to do different tasks, like in "Lord of the realms", the "general population" growth could be done like in "Banished" more simplified even, also ability to build anywhere on the map as long as you can bring resources and sustain manpower without any artificial limitations and so on, basically copying and adapting ideas from everywhere as well as real life.    
  7. X-COM: Enemy Unknown (2012)

        That might have been an overstatement I agree, but it's still way to arcadey for my tastes anyway, and the atmosphere even for nostalgic reasons alone, just not there and I don't like when games in order to be challenging require fiddling with settings to extremes, that just never worked for me, it's arcadey at it's very basis, you can't change that with "ironman" mode.       No offence meant with that "retarded monkey" comment, I take it back.
  8. Never Team Up with the Idea Guy

      Yeah that's why games suck so horribly nowadays, people have no idea what to do, and have to rely on "non idea guy" but with technical skills to come up with ideas...       If you apply that logic to say film industry, it means that if a director don't know how to actually operate camera or sound, etc, he's useless as a director, and instead a cameraman has to do directing, since he actually knows how to shoot a movie, and what director knows? Nothing, he just sits there shouting at everyone about how they should do their work, really film industry should take example from indie gaming and fire all directors and make teams only of people with technical knowledge, who needs directors anyway?
  9. X-COM: Enemy Unknown (2012)

     Yes I played it, as well as all of the originals about the time they came out, I also played every other indie x-com that came after the Ubisoft's latest flop, True I didn't play it long, the shallow feeling of it especially in compare to the classic quickly overcame me and I stopped, played for a about 2 hours.
  10. Economics engine

                About calculating prices - what about just taking actual prices or approximately realistic values, and then let players to fiddle around and see what to balance from there.     As far as I understand the general concept - players will be able to choose what kind of business they wanna run, like logistics, resource extraction, manufacturing, or purely trading or a combination.          Building and it's functionality could be separate, on a very basic level it was done in "Towns" where you build  building and then choose what it's functionality will be by putting stuff into the building, so building a factory for example means you need to build a a big enough building to fit, say, production line or whtvr.  This might open other possibilities, like planning ahead, say you wanna have a big factory, you can build it big enough to incorporate more equipment later on to avoid building another one, or ability to reequip that factory or upgrade the equipment inside and so on.
  11. What makes an RTS game stand out?

         I agree, imo CoH is hands down the best RTS out there and by far, They introduced a tactical approach to combat that you can find in more hardcore tactical RTS's like Close Combat series where you have pinning, arc of fire and all that good tactical stuff, a little simplified to fit mainstream standards of accesability but not lossing it's realistic feel.    And that leads me to an idea that introducing realistic game mechanics into the RTS genre will add depth that will make it stand out of the crowd.
  12. Economics engine

           Looks like you're still largely undecided about some aspects, would be nice to hear more about the core gameplay mechanics to get a clearer idea what you have in mind for this game.
  13. Economics engine

     Very interesting so far, any specific plans for multiplayer? Could you actually make it a persistent MMO? 
  14. Planet Colony - Resources & Commodities?

       Just a thought, since there is such a rise of popularity in sandbox games, it seems to be the new trend, why not make it a free roaming sandbox? if done cleverly, it might be even easier than scenario based game, you wouldn't need to make all missions and scenarios and  stuff, and it sounds more appealing that way.
  15. X-COM: Enemy Unknown (2012)

      The new X-com is simply a generic adoptation of classic hits to "contemporary game design" which basically means it's been tailored to let even a retarded monkey to do well, just like other recent remakes("Fallout 3") is just another example of dumbing down to suit the masses, and ofc. just like other Ubisoft, EA and other AAA studios - the only thing you should expect is extremely superficial commercial titles with lots of hype and total lack of innovation and depth.    In short - Big AAA game studio - shitty games, lot's of hype.
  • Advertisement