Cities and their effects.

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » New Feature Request

Author

Message

Jan 11, 2017 02:11

Subject: Cities and their effects.

Selexcis

Messages: 26,
Joined: Mar 07, 2016,
Offline

At this stage I am going to say that I feel that cities while presenting an additional kind of objective, is almost always hard to justify trying to control. You are often punished heavily for trying to control a city, and I feel the credit benefit is not worth the unit damage or losses sustained trying to protect it.

What I think would be a good alternative is to have cities as an impassable terrain (except to air), and have the player who has an uncontested unit next to the city earn money for the player the following turn.

So for instance if both players have a unit next to the city, it earns no money, but if there is only one player's units adjacent to it, it earns money for that player. That way we can make city income more or less accesible by putting terrain around it.

What could be exciting as well is number of cities held to unlock unit upgrades.

So for instance successfully holding 1 city unlocks the ability to build an upgraded version of the infantry unit. (mecha with 8 mobility instead of 7, marine with 5 defense, Underling with 1 air attack) something like that. Successfully holding 2 unlocks an upgrade for the support units (something like being able to build them at a 25 credit discount, or adding 1 to their mobility) a 3rd would unlock an upgraded speeder/marauder/swarmer etc. Each player would have a technology counter (number) so the opponent would know what had been unlocked.

I know its a wild idea which will take a lot of reworking the programming but it could be quite fun.

Jan 11, 2017 11:11

Subject: Cities and their effects.

wookieontheweb

Messages: 485,
Joined: Jan 27, 2016,
Location: Southampton, UK
Offline

I used to think this about cities too, but there are a number of new maps that are designed to make it much easier to hold some cities and fight over others. Unlike loosing a base, loosing a city is not the end of the game in most cases. You can move the unit off the city while it is threatened then move it back etc. Also they don't produce enemy units inside your territory.

The problem is if map designers just sprinkle cities onto a map like forest or desert, i.e. to make things a bit more interesting. These cities are normally not useful in battle.

Android 9. Samsung Galaxy A50

Jan 12, 2017 07:55

Subject: Re:Cities and their effects.

Kohtar

Messages: 40,
Joined: Oct 12, 2016,
Offline

I really like cities myself and I think they present a new kind of challenge. Of course you should only sit on them if you think you can hold them or if it is a way to divert enemy pressure. But holding a city for 2 turns gives you the price of a light unit, so it's often worth a little more damage on a light unit. On the other hand putting an expensive unit on them is often a bad idea.

The only problem with cities is that they make tourney tiebreakers obsolete: you can now have more units on board and less units killed if you managed to keep control of the cities, while sustaining heavier losses because of that.

Jan 14, 2017 04:36

Subject: Re:Cities and their effects.

OmegaD

Messages: 30,
Joined: Dec 11, 2016,
Offline

Personally I like the cities the way they are. You have to weigh the extra income against the damage that will inevitably be sustained by going for that income.

Forum Index » New Feature Request