| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
This makes for a good suggestion: A water unit that transports another unit. That would make things REALLY interesting. It would put a new twist on the topography of many maps because you could have islands.
|
|
|
|
Huh. I kind of like it. I like the bases in the middle of the "swamp". It reminds me of the map Butterfly.
|
|
|
You know, this WOULD be possible, and I'll tell you why.
When I first looked at this, I thought that since the two land masses weren't connected, you could control the outside and the guy in the middle couldn't get to you. THEN I thought about what was required to win. You can take the enemy's bases or block them. The Sapiens and Khraleans could use their flying units to capture, and the titans could teleport, if that makes sense. It's REALLY iffy, though. I would make bridges in the middle of the sides of the square to the middle of the sides of the outside ring to connect them. This would make four isolated "ponds". I like it otherwise.
|
|
|
|
I think this map looks a lot like Land Bridge, just bigger.
|
|
|
Okay, so everybody has probably noticed that Leviathans are pretty bad at fighting other water units. They only have twelve attack against other water units (Destroyers have 16; Hydronauts have 13, with farther range). But, on the other hand, they are more cost effective, being only 600 credits where the other units are 800. Doing some simple math, we can tell that Leviathans are better for a couple reasons:
First, let's bring the price up from 600 to 800 credits. In doing so, we will also bring the stats up one-third (I will round down in this math, so don't freak out; also note that we only enhance the attack and defense stats:
Type:Original:New
Ground Light: 10: 13
Ground Heavy: 10: 13
Aerial: 8: 10 (This DOES leave something to be desired, as it is still the smallest one, but there's nothing we can do about that)
Aquatic: 12: 16 (This puts it equal to the Destroyer)
Defense: 11: 14
So, after all that, the Leviathan has the best stats in all the categories except for two, the Aerial and the Aquatic. In Aerial, most of the time, nobody throws a flying unit at a water unit, because the aerial unit will lose when both are full health. As for Aquatic, it is tied with the Destroyer, but it isn't behind. I don't think anybody would complain about that.
In conclusion, the Leviathan is the most cost-effective unit, having the best stats in proportion to the cost. Outlined below are the reasons why Leviathans are better water units (Seeing as they are still the weakest "brute force"-wise, you have to make up for that with sheer numbers).
1) You can make more Leviathans than Destroyers/Hydronauts simply because they are less expensive. In three turns, where 600 is given each turn, you can make three Leviathans, but only two Destroyers. If used correctly, the three Leviathans will win (I tested it a few times, it works with good coordination and use of the flank bonus). The Leviathans are left pretty badly damaged (depending on how it was played, one or two of them were destroyed). However, even if you only have one left, you are still ahead.
2) Because you can have more, you can take advantage of the flank bonus more.
3) In games like Starlake where you only have a small income with water, it is easy to rush for Leviathans as they are deadly when the enemy has no water units of his/her own.
That's it. I hope I've made it understandable with the stats and all. I hope I've changed some minds. Thoughts?
|
|
|
One of my favorite ways to use buried underlings is in maps where the credits/base is less than 100. In the map Starvation, for example. What I will do is put an underling next to each of their ten or so bases behind the front lines and unearth them all at once. Chances are the enemy doesn't have enough money to make an infantry unit is EVERY base and loses some to you. While they try to fight the "uprising" (pun intended) and put money towards recovering their lost bases, you can quickly take advantage of their units on the front lines and tip the scale in your favor.
To calculate whether they have enough money to cover all their bases:
1) See how much money that have lost already (Actually, you can compare your losses to theirs, this is a good way of determining efficiency and almost always who will win)
2) See how many turns have gone by and (roughly) how many bases they had on all those turns
3) See the credits/base
4) Multiply credits/base by base (which, if you multiply by the denominator, is of course, how many credits/turn they get  ) Then multiply this by turns (rounds) gone by.
Pretty simple. From there you can deduct how much they have lost and how much they have on the field now (of what you can see plus ten percent is usually a good formula unless you can see everything; calculating what they have on the field may take a minute) and you have a rough estimate of how much money they have at that turn. It will probably not be exact unless you take notes the whole game through, so just add a couple hundred to give yourself a safe buffer.
|
|
|
Few things:
I like the idea of taking income off of bases. The income would have to rely on something else. Perhaps certain units themselves have income. Of course, this would just cause a rush for those units. Perhaps income depends on every map. For example, every player receives 200 credits when they start their turn.
Of course, this would have to be a small map because when you spread yourself out, it is harder to take care of all your fronts. BUT, that might be where winning depends on how you play, not how many credits you have, because suddenly the smaller players have the advantage of having be more efficient (they are not spread thin). So you would have to build up before attacking.
I think it's a great idea.
About maps like starvation, maps where the bases have less than 100 credits as income. I REALLY like these maps because you can win even when you are losing. For example, I was playing AI. I was khraleans. I stuffed the ground with 11 or so underlings and put one next to each of their bases and emerged them all in one turn. The AI couldn't possibly defend ALL its bases so I won a few, turning the tide in my favor.
Also, they have to spend credits putting down the revolution, so they stops supplying the front lines. Even if ou lose bases back there, hopefully they got out too much infrastructure to put down the outbreak, allowing you to take some of the front line bases. This method could work with Titans, too, with the teleport idea.
I like the idea of having a certain amount of credits to start with and just duking it out with other players. For example, everyone gets 5000 credits to spend. You place all your units in a specific starting area and start. No bases, just the terrain bonus and the strength/weakness techniques. I think it would be great.
One more thing:
I would like to see an editor icon for single player. Not for online, play, of course, but just a place where you could have fun and create your own map and either give yourself a challenge or make it cruel to your enemy AI.
Also, perhaps players could submit maps and those that were "fair" would be released into a different section (Like, there is a section for the games that already exist, and another section for player-generated maps). Of course, the creator of the map would be credited by their username or anonomous if they didn't play online (unlikely though).
|
|
|
Few things:
I like the idea of taking income off of bases. The income would have to rely on something else. Perhaps certain units themselves have income. Of course, this would just cause a rush for those units. Perhaps income depends on every map. For example, every player receives 200 credits when they start their turn.
Of course, this would have to be a small map because when you spread yourself out, it is harder to take care of all your fronts. BUT, that might be where winning depends on how you play, not how many credits you have, because suddenly the smaller players have the advantage of having be more efficient (they are not spread thin). So you would have to build up before attacking.
I think it's a great idea.
About maps like starvation, maps where the bases have less than 100 credits as income. I REALLY like these maps because you can win even when you are losing. For example, I was playing AI. I was khraleans. I stuffed the ground with 11 or so underlings and put one next to each of their bases and emerged them all in one turn. The AI couldn't possibly defend ALL its bases so I won a few, turning the tide in my favor.
Also, they have to spend credits putting down the revolution, so they stops supplying the front lines. Even if ou lose bases back there, hopefully they got out too much infrastructure to put down the outbreak, allowing you to take some of the front line bases. This method could work with Titans, too, with the teleport idea.
I like the idea of having a certain amount of credits to start with and just duking it out with other players. For example, everyone gets 5000 credits to spend. You place all your units in a specific starting area and start. No bases, just the terrain bonus and the strength/weakness techniques. I think it would be great.
One more thing:
I would like to see an editor icon for single player. Not for online, play, of course, but just a place where you could have fun and create your own map and either give yourself a challenge or make it cruel to your enemy AI.
Also, perhaps players could submit maps and those that were "fair" would be released into a different section (Like, there is a section for the games that already exist, and another section for player-generated maps). Of course, the creator of the map would be credited by their username or anonomous if they didn't play online (unlikely though).
|
|
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
