TimrioJoin Date: 2007-03-18
Post Count: 7451 |
I don't know if water territories are in the making, but I thought of some ideas to enhance the gameplay if it is added. This is a bit complex however.
Navies: Navies are represented by the same overall and color, but it is in a different brightness or a different tint to help people know what is an army and what is a navy. Navies function the same way armies do on land, but there are a few pointers:
*Navies can attack coastal territories like armies
*Navies are generally produced slower than men.
*Navies are faster by a little (not too big that land cross is obsolote and navy hoping is overpowered, but just enough so sea transportation isn't just an island capturing operative.
How the UI should work (Option 1): The UI should now have 2 windows, and each should be differently colored or easily identified differently from the others to avoid confusion. The First window is the army page. The only change here is territory army production; you can decide from this small add on how many cities should work on army production. The new window is your navy add on; from here you can see how many troops are on board and the ships maxiun carrying capacity. It to can also decide how many cities can produce ships. To have troops go on board, you have a ship in a sea territory first, than you send troops from an adjacent coastal territory to get the troops on.
Option 2: There is still 1 window, but there is a port beside every costal province, clicking it brings up the same window, but now it controls your navy as opposed to your army. To board, you click on the territory, then the port, and finally send the number troops you want. The army # will be displayed in the window and on map. Armies can only be used if you select a water territory occupied by you and then select an adjacent coastal province. Navies can also participate, but only after the army is sent.
You can lose men on the sea if you lose ships and the # of men overides the carrying cap. Armies can also not retreat if they are landing unless a navy is in the same water territory they came from.
Cities (what I call those grey houses in a territory) now serve a secondary purpose. Cities give you the ability to split your production into two parts, army and navy. More cities mean a more specific percentage between the two productions. (4 cities meaning you can split 20% To another army field, none meaning the full 100%) |
|
|
I only red to page 7 so if someone already said this i don't need to know.
Happiness
If your units are happy they get attack bonus and production bonus +5% chance of winning a battle +10% faster Unit creation
If Regular you get no benefits
If unhappy Production is slowed,and units become weaker -10% unit production -5% chance of winning
How to get happiness:Low taxes, Entertainment buildings
How to lose happiness:High Taxes,Siting around,seeing people die
Taxes:This would implement money So you get to choose taxes to gain money 1-10$ you can choose.Every House you own has people who have to pay taxes. 1-3$ tax is happy 4-6$ is regular 7-10$ is unhappy Taxes come every 15 seconds
Houses:Cost 700$ Benefits:5% troop increase for that territory+more money from taxes.
Entertainment buildings:Cost 300$ Benefits:2 happiness
Max houses per territory:3 Max Entertainment per territory:2
Seeing people die:-3 happiness high taxes:-5 happiness sitting:-2 happiness
Low taxes: +5 happiness |
|
|
Also losing capital is -15 happiness |
|
TimrioJoin Date: 2007-03-18
Post Count: 7451 |
@xXDeath101Xx
Happiness is too trickey to incorprorate into this game, and it sounds like it can be too hard to manage or too insignificant it might as well be removed. The benfits or consequences don't seem to be game changers or significant ones either, but I guess it can tip the edge in a very, very close war. Taxes seams sketchy as well. They appeal more towards switching them as your empire gets smaller/bigger rather than actual strategy or thought of switching levels of taxation. |
|
|
I guess i didn't notice that he had already implemented money and structures |
|
|
and i think that getting money simply from having territories is well...dumb.
And forgot to add capital has taxes too (just incase your wondering how to get 700$ from the start of the game) |
|
shango223Join Date: 2012-06-16
Post Count: 11 |
Maybe world events or something to prevent people too only think about destroying or ravaging and if you could make the WHOLE map of the Earth. |
|
|
@Cubic You have no idea who you are messing with. Don't act arrogant and say(in other words) that I think I am superior to others. You are completely wrong and can not correctly predict personality. You also have never met me in real life, so you do not know me and never will. Not like you could track my location, its secure and in the right hands. You are also hiding "offenses" towards me and hide them in these "calm messages." Leave me alone and its over. Continue these replies and I will keep this forum war going. |
|
|
@Timrio
personally I would prefer if there were no distinctions between unit classes. I think it would make managing your army too complicated. I believe water territories which don't produce units is the way to go. They could produce money however, to represent fishing and oil rigs or other ways to make money from the oceans. Oil rigs could even be upgrades exclusively available on some water territories.
Terrain would also exist, with reefs and regions with icebergs having different traits. The biggest advantage though would be the possibility of including archipelago territories, which work like a regular territory without the need to have a full block representing them. They would instead just have some island markers instead, similar to the city markers we have now.
@TheBlackstar999
"You have no idea who you are messing with." A threat? How cute. Kind of funny considering you later add "Not like you could track my location, its secure and in the right hands." as I would say this goes both ways and is also exactly why any threats would be utterly pointless. Aside from the fact of course, that I never made any threats myself and that doing so is against the rules.
"Don't act arrogant and say(in other words) that I think I am superior to others." Really now? You don't feel superior at all? Let's have a look at what you've been saying so far then.
"And you are not even a Roblox Veteran, aand plus, I do not respect you."
"I may as well go ahead in defeat you in what ever game you are playing Mike. SHUT UP. You are a disgrace."
"You can not harm me. Congress gave me the freedom of speech, so back off, worthless piece of flesh."
And these are just a few of them. To me it seems that concluding that you consider yourself superior is only logical. After all, if you don't then that means you consider yourself equal or perhaps inferior, meaning that you think all of the above applies at least as much to you as it applies to the people you wrote this to.
Funny also, how you tell me not to be arrogant by saying you think you are superior, considering that "arrogance" means almost the same as thinking you are better. Thus, you accuse me of the very same thing you think I shouldn't accuse you off. Strange, that you alone would have this "privilege" even though you don't consider yourself superior.
What I write in these messages are things I conclude from what you say. When I say you think you are superior I say so because you wrote things that lead to this conclusion. When I say you complain about lack of support I am referring to "Uggh, this thread has to many CubicBerserker supporters" If what I write seems insulting to you then I can only say that I am not trying to make fun of you. You do that just fine yourself. I need only quote you and perhaps add some lines analysing your words.
In spite of all your remarks on my inability to predict things it seems I was quite close with my prediction. Let's examine it:
-"Now I'll now you'll just pick a random sentence from this post"
The only reference to a specific part of my reply was to:
"but you seem determined to convince the world of you own moral superiority "
Check.
-"and create a reply of about 3 lines long"
Depending on where I view it it shows up as either 6 or 4 lines. Since it's 6 in the actual thread and perhaps 5 would be a limit on what is still "about 3" I suppose I'll give you this one.
-"where you try to accuse me of yet another random thing that just popped into your head"
Let's see: "You also have never met me in real life, so you do not know me and never will. Not like you could track my location, its secure and in the right hands."
Considering how this isn't at all relevant to what was previously said I'll say it counts as random. Check.
-"while completely ignoring all of the valid statements I make here"
"You are completely wrong" Check.
-"or, for that matter, even stopping to think about the purpose of doing so."
"Leave me alone and its over. Continue these replies and I will keep this forum war going." Check.
-"The real fun will be in discovering wether you will follow this prediction or if you'll try to go out of your way to prove me wrong out of spite."
You scored 4/5. The only part where I was wrong is the part about length. Considering how you insist that I can't predict anything it's surprising you conform so well to my predictions. One might even think that you are similar to a puppet and that all I am doing is pulling your strings, which is a ridiculous idea of course, but people can sometimes think strange things.
Although many people, unfortunately politicians in particular, often neglect doing this, you should always try to bring real arguments to a discussion. Saying things like "you are completely wrong" just doesn't cut it. If it did anyone could use it to refute anything.
"The earth is round" "You are completely wrong"
"Belgium is in Europe" "You are completely wrong"
"2+2=4" "You are completely wrong"
As you can see, this leads to problematic situations. This is why one should always use real arguments instead of making general statements of "You are completely wrong".
"Leave me alone and its over. Continue these replies and I will keep this forum war going."
Perhaps you should ask yourself how much you have actually contributed to this thread. Instead of continuing your off topic spam flaming you might want to reflect upon your own reactions. Many people here have reacted positively to my constructive criticism, knowing that I intended to help. You are the only one here who apparently feels like his oppinion is something that may not be criticised or questioned at all.
Even though you claim I can't predict personalities the mere fact that you responded by starting to flame people already tells me all I need to know. If it were true that you didn't feel superior then you simply wouldn't have done that. Another good reasong not to stop is that doing so would no doubt make you think you were right, enforcing your missplaced sense of superiority even further.
If you really want to be serious about this I suggest you make a point-by-point argument of why I am wrong instead of merely saying that I am. If you can't do that, it likely means you're wrong yourself and you should probably reflect upon your reactions. |
|
TimrioJoin Date: 2007-03-18
Post Count: 7451 |
@CubicBerserker
I don't think adding in navies would make army management too complicated. I can uderstand why Aircraft, tanks, and the like would, but navies function on a completely different part of the battlefeild with some exceptions of coastal territories or embarking. I try to explain the best I could how the U.I could work to help avoid confusion it may bring. I just brought up the idea of navies and pushing it a bit because I think they can immensly increase the depth of this game. If, however, you truely believe it should only focus on armies with water territorys, I guess that's fine as well.
I do argee with non-producing water areas and making profits from water. These reasources may or may not include pearls, whaling, crabs and lobsters, fishing, oil platform, trading port, etc. The fragmented islands or archipelago territories could represent the amount of profit from that reasource as well. The only problom I can find with this is the location of these reasources; both random and preset have their respective problems of one player getting a lucky well or spawning near a pre-determined fishing spot. |
|
|
@CubicIWantWar
You asked for all of this. Some people weren't meant to even see each other. You, have the opposite personality of me and this reply shows that you want to keep the reply war going, and you should know that I have my opinions but you do not respect them so back off creep. You are a 2012er, and you never knew about Roblox's past. Back then, in 2006, Roblox was about having fun and making friends. Now, all there is is Noobs wrecking things and people like you starting reply wars. |
|
|
@cubic i love ur mention of 2+2 = 4 is wrong! that was a reference to big brother i believe |
|
|
@Theblackstar
You are not obliged to reply. You do not respect his opinions either.
You are a 2012er, so you never knew about ROBLOX's past.
Back then, in 2006, Roblox was about having fun and making friends and making original places.
There were still noobs wrecking things and people like you who can't handle other opinions.
I conclude you are a hypocrite.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
Also I call hearsay on both sides.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
I am not a hypocrite, and I used to have an old 2007 account, plus I also know about the original ROBLOX Happy home, classic building tools, and other stuff. Do not assume I am like this just because of this character. You don't know my past, idiot. |
|
|
Plus you are trying to defend him. This is not a fair trial... 7_7 |
|
|
Proof of this old 2007 account? Classic building tools were here until 2011. Happy home was here until 2011. It was just a house until they added basically a whole city to it. I do my research. Your argument is invalid until you give me proof that the 2007 account is your's.
Also you a hypocrite sometimes.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
Also I still call hearsay on your side as it was a 2007 account and not '06.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
I found the information idiot. You cannot just make assumptions you are almost as bad as your idiotic berserk friend. |
|
|
I suggest that we add a middle earth map but 2 times bigger because of the few countries. |
|
|
Too much but I like the mountain idea. |
|
|
Make a Clouds and Ocean or Sea |
|
|
Make a Vote Rules so anyone will not reason about something there problems ex. Not ally rule, Ally rule and No AEO < this means Attack each other and this is the last idea please make a Time cause i don't want some 3000+ sec and i cant play when i'm late please do it for me |
|
|
So did I, but you can't be sure that that person is telling the truth.
I already called hearsay on both sides, if it makes you feel better I'll call hearsay on myself again.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
You are one difficult person. Maybe you need to find out more about me. You don't know me, my past, what I am doing right now, or my personality. |
|