| Author |
Message |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
That is a good point. if any games are unfinished, rewind the game to the last common turn and compare statistics then. Person with more bases captured wins, if that is tied, then most units on the board at that point of the game wins.
|
|
|
Currently says least expensive flying unit. This will need to change when Borfly is officially released 
|
|
|
|
I agree, objective should be, capture all enemy bases. (or control more bases than enemy when tourney time expires)
|
|
|
I should clarify.
I am in a game where its a 2v2 in a tournament.
we each start with 1 base that is ours, and 2 neutrals next to it.
there is one neutral in the middle of the map that we have to contest.
the base captured counter in the war report shows 4 bases captured vs 4 bases captured after we capture the nearby neutrals. (4v4)
Enemy captures the neutral in centre because they are Khraelean,
so it shows 4 bases captured vs 5 bases captures (in enemy favour)
however we captured it back, but instead of the score going to 5v4, it goes to 5v5, which is not fair for tie breakers because we are actually winning on total bases.
I am not talking about income, i am talking about score keeping in the war report. thank you.
|
|
|
Can UniWar designers fix the base counter for games where the objective is 'capture enemy bases' (especially in tournaments)
Pardon me if this has already been discussed and I have just necro-ed a thread, but it is clearly an error of counting to award 1 base captured to a side when they capture a neutral.
Neutrals should only be worth 0.5 base captures, and a proper enemy base capture worth 1.
Imagine a map with 3 neutrals.
Player 1 was khraelean, managed to get all 3 neutrals first. (so score is 3 vs 0). But player 2 managed to capture 2 neutrals back (so it becomes 3 vs 2).
After that the actual base count is in favour of player 2. (because he controls 2/3 of the original neutrals) But because of the broken counting system at present it still records 1 in favour of player 1, which is nonsense.
If the game ends because of time, even if player 2 has ONE MORE bases than player 1, player 1 still wins because of the broken counting system
Please fix.
|
|
|
Oh wow, I have been super ignorant then. I guess it makes sense that with 250 credit substandard infantry killer, having a bit more GL killing power in their heavy makes sense. Pinzers are generally only built against titans though... and it is true that swarmers do struggle against mecha quite badly...
|
|
|
|
Sorry I have been off this forum for a while, and I suddenly noticed Pinzer GL attack is now 12. Can anyone shed light on when this happened and why?
|
|
|
i don't think anybody mentioned removing paid infinite undo.
another thread already mentioned they were going to implement ads for people how HAVEN'T paid for it but allow them infinite undo that way.
i like the idea of tournaments having a no undo feature or both players being able to access it.
|
|
|
|
this is true. if he told me what it was i would have waited. i guess language barrier could be responsible as well.
|
|
|
Oh he surrendered  I thought it was a reasonably tight game on one, although in another i had both material and base number advantage. can close this thread now
|
|
|
|
He logged in to tell me not to skip his turn
|
|
|
I am playing round 6 of KvK
My opponent has timed out in both his games, with a message in one asking me not to skip his turn.
I do not want to progress in this tournament by skipping a turn.
It is now 16 hours since the last move.
However I am concerned about the possibility with all the extra time given that he is possibly receiving or awaiting external help with his turn however unlikely this is.
16 hours is a full waking hour day. even if 8 hours of it was sleep, that is still 8 waking hours on a weekend.
Is there a consensus on how long one should wait before skipping? (given it is both games, I am sure he is not trying to delay his winning game)
Thanks for your opinions.
|
|
|
|
i think most experienced players will agree in the KvK tourney who have survived this far, will agree (that in map 1 and 2), a safely spawned garuda (that is not in range of an enemy swarmer) works very well when used in conjunction with other swarmers that are being used as blockers. The occasional underling that blocks an important flight path is also well worth a 100 credits. I found players who built only swarmers and neglected early underlings or garudas were overpowered quite easily. This agrees with a previous post that observed that smaller maps support garudas,
|
|
|
the reason garudas stats are under powered because its the only flying unit that can heal at 2. I think more defense points is not a bad idea so that it doesn't just transform into a mini chopper. Having more defense will go along the line of good repair and tougher air blocker.
I do agree that i find it hard to justify playing garudas against any other race apart from khraelean unless the sapien player was notoriously bad and just built tanks and forgot they couldn't attack garudas (has happened before).
|
![[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
