|09/06/2008 03:51:13 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|not that... I don't like the idea.|
|09/06/2008 09:30:22 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|Could be fun for a gimmick, but not real maps.|
|08/01/2009 16:23:33 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|08/01/2009 17:11:31 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
@Niki: I kind of think the mine thing would be fun on certain maps (but I have to say you are kind of twisted for even coming up with that idea).
Also, if there were bridges (or maybe even roads) it could add another dimension if it was possible to destroy them. They could have certain defenses attributed to them and obviously different units would be able to attack them with differing amounts of damage being dealt (and probably only certain units would even have the capability of attacking them at all i.e. artillery, etc. and not troopers). This would be mostly effective on maps that have a fair amount of islands and you could as a tactical move you could destroy the only way for your opponent to move ground based units against you.
Otherwise I like most of the ideas listed above by everyone. Would be nice to add a new element to the game while still keeping it mostly simple.
|11/01/2009 00:21:03 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|Nicely done mike. I particularly like the snow mountains.|
|16/01/2009 13:34:15 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
I would add a word of caution in allowing too many different terrain types, eg wouldn't "jungle" be just the same as the existing forest/wood? The beauty of Weewar is its playability - it would be a shame to make it over complicated. The "city" terrain is interesting though, but surely the defence modifier would be positive for troops? In every conflict I know, taking on troops in a city is one of the most dangerous operations there is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 20/01/2009 08:40:31
|16/01/2009 17:02:19 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
The way I look at it is adding two new tile types.
New Playable Tiles: Road, Concrete, Mines, Deep Sea, Bridge
New Skin Tiles: Snow tiles, Jungle, etc... are for map makers to skin maps. Snow mountains would have the same modifiers as regular mountains.
|21/01/2009 09:15:49 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
At the moment the only tiles that can be altered during play are the "base", "airfield" and "harbour" hexes (they can be changed from neutral to hostile or friendly). Could this idea be taken a stage further with players being able to modify other hexes? For example, having Troopers build "bridge" tiles to ford a river, and have other units with the capability of destroying them; minefields that can be laid and cleared; and trenches that can be dug and filled in. Perhaps this could lead to a new "Engineers" (soft) unit to facilitate this?
(Just noticed that this is expanding what Troymadsen touched on earlier)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 21/01/2009 11:47:13
|21/01/2009 11:16:15 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
I'm in favor of the 'weather elements' for display purposes but they don't affect the tyle type.
i.e. snow covered mountain has the same effect as a mountain.
jungle is the same as forests.
could have frozen tundra same as swamp.
|21/01/2009 11:48:51 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|I agree that this would add to the aesthetics of Weewar, but I'd be more interested in changes that influence decision making in the game. You mentioned "weather elements". That got me thinking. What about having random weather during the game - a deep snow fall for the first six rounds slows up advancing troops; low cloud cover for ten rounds limits the capabilities of aircraft? A weather forecast could give players a little warning. Sorry, I'm going off this thread a little now.|
|21/01/2009 18:11:00 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|One of the selling points of this game to me is the complicated simplicity of it. Something that takes hours to learn but a much longer time to master. Over complicating things would break the down the fun of the game. Theres no need to have dozens of terrain when just a few will do. If they don't significantly chance the way the game can be played then its not worth having it. That said, I think the non-producing base is a good idea. I think the easiest and best thing to do would be to make them worth half of a reg base, so only one base income needs to be considered.|
|21/01/2009 18:48:15 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
|Not to say I don't like the ideas, but I too think that part of the appeal of the game is the simplicity and focus of the design. It takes a disciplined approach to keep it simple|
|22/01/2009 00:17:22 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
roads would have clear value in the way they would change strategy based on breakthrough possibilities. On its own that would not add too much complexity.
Cities (bases without producing units) makes sense, but would add complexity for less value.
As for the rest more complexity than they are worth.
|22/01/2009 01:58:20 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
COmpletely agree that other new features would be preferred than new terrain types. but keeping the mechanics the
same and adding a few graphics choices would add some flavor and not change the game in the slightest.
It should also be easy to do considering they've already been created and posted in the forum. just need to store a few more graphics.
|23/01/2009 04:09:08 Re:Proposed New Terrain Types|
+1 for deep sea. I've always found sea battles (even post-update) a bit more stale than land. I think the largest reason is because sea does not have terrain for strategy beyond sea-base & where it can/can't go. Deep sea could add a whole dimension to strategy much like forest/mountain/swamp/desert does this with land units. Plus, I think this would help the boring "Cold War" fronts from making a game far too predictable, 10 turns out. Stats could look something like this:
Effect on Attack / Defense:
speedboat: -1 (regular sea is 0)
amphibic: -1 (regular sea is 0)
sub: +1 (regular sea is 0)
sub: 2 (regular sea is 3)
boat: 2 (regular sea is 3)