chadwrJoin Date: 2008-08-08
Post Count: 30 |
Once, a long time again, the American capital war burned, but the war went on. In real life, if you lost your capital, especially in modern times, you'd still go on. After all, the president has his own jet, as a moving "HQ". And, there are always those generals that will request for volunteers among the populace. And I doubt any nation will LET itself be conquered. |
|
markrimaJoin Date: 2012-02-12
Post Count: 81 |
@Theblackstar999
(Stating this now, if I misspell or forget someone's user name I apologize, I have very poor memory) Blackstar I advise you to give it up already, People can and will bury you with insults if you keep this up. Per example: You claim that mikeyman10ash is "one difficult person" and that "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." Well mike was correct, you are a hypocrite, since you refuse to take your own advise. CubicBeserker has non-stop been trying to help you through constructive criticism. What do you do? You not only ignore it, but attempt to use his words against him, poorly I might add as well. Now you are starting to make this a "reply war" . This is the first time I have ever seen the username CubicBeserker but not my first time seeing you. You also stated " Plus you are trying to defend him. This is not a fair trial" Trials start fair, but always end up becoming "unfair" . And since when has this been a trial? If it were a trial, the "judge" would of proclaimed you guilty in 2007 when you supposedly "Made your account" I myself started playing in 2008 as a Guest and made an account in 2009, unluckily for me I was banned around 2011, so this is my main. Do you see me trying to seem superior to everyone? No, you see me attempting and succeeding into winning a debate by supporting two other Robloxians. Only I am getting sick of your "charade" if you feel the need to personally attack Cubic for being a better Robloxian than you, and you wanted it to be "fair" it is your mistake for calling him put publicly. It is as if you almost enjoy being publicly humiliated. Now before you attempt and fail miserably to "pwn me back" I will use your "famous quote" 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." Only I DO know your personality, you're a stubborn little boy that is spoiled and feels the need to prove a point that he never had. Cubic might let you down easy, but I intend to make you fall HARD unless you stop with the pointless spam.
|
|
|
I never tried to guess anything about you, your past, what you are doing right now, or your personality. All I've said that relates to you directly is that you are a hypocrite, which is not, contrary to your beliefs, a guess, but a logical conclusion I've drawn after watching you post.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
rager999Join Date: 2012-08-11
Post Count: 57 |
sounds pretty cool
|
|
|
You know nothing. Try to predict my personality still? You know nothing. This thread is full of CubicBerserker's supporters. Trying to predict someone's personality is like trying to predict the outcome of when a spinner stops spinning. You won't know! Your prediction is wrong, and Roblox is destroying itself every day. The updates don't help, and then we have people like you around. |
|
|
While I'll admit there are multiple fallacies in both of our arguments, you have less however your big logical fallacy is the "Argument from fallacy."
Also, hypocrite is a term used in a single instance in time, meaning while you may be a hypocrite now, you are not a hypocrite at a later time until you prove it.
Anyway, try to avoid "Argument from fallacy", which is, since both arguments are fallacious, you are assuming that since mine is the conclusion itself is fallacious, which it is not, as I have valid proof of you being a hypocrite on this thread.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
@markrima (on page 17)
This is largely how I imagine income would be gained from territories. I also think that diplomacy with neutrals would be a logical next step once money is implemented. Since units can quickly number in the thousands though and because I can't imagine requiring any smaller quantities of money I would make each unit worth only 1 gold (or less) in cases where it applies. Income would be scaled accordingly.
I am all for buying mercenaries, it seems like a good way to spend money you can't use otherwise. I would limit how many you can buy in a certain ammount of time however (to stop rich players from suddenly summoning a large army). I would also make it so you can't do so wherever you please, by making it so they always appear at the capital (or perhaps hiring mercenaries would require a certain territory upgrade to be present, so that you can't just buy them at the frontline).
As far as the bomb idea goes, I have a few problems with the way you suggest it would work. The first one is that you say it would affect surrounding territories as well. Since territories can vary in size this would lead to unrealistic differences in what area is affected. Another problem is that it would be impossible to target your enemy without hitting yourself unless you can shoot it blindly into the fog (which doesn't seem like a good idea). Hitting a single one seems like more than enough to me.
The second problem I have is that it would do a constant ammount of damage. Not only is this also unrealistic, I think it makes the whole thing a bit pointless to begin with. I find that games tend to increase in scale all the time, starting with sending armies of 10-20 units, later 50-250, then 1000-2500 and eventually all the way up to 10000 or more. I feel like killing a certain percentage of troops would be a better idea since it would counter a player who concentrates all of his units in one spot. The problem with that though is that it could make the bomb OP in the late game as armies become massive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
@Timrio
While I can see how navies wouldn't complicate things as much as tanks would it would still be a lot more tricky than things are now. Especially since land units can't move over water independently if this is the case. I am not sure how you would specify how many of both land and naval units are to move at the same time if land units require naval units to move across water.
To illustrate this point, imagine you had 1000 units and 120 ships in a coastal territory, each ship being able to move 50 units. I now wish to flank an enemy by moving my army across the water. To do this, I wish to send 500 units and 50 ships. The way you suggest things would still work fine at this point, but imagine that later on I wish to divert some of my navy to intercept an enemy that is moving 400 units in 20 ships. Since I only really need 25 ships to carry the invasion army I want to send the other 25 to attack the enemy before they land.
My problem now is, how can we quickly specify how many ships and units are to take another route? I don't want to send the ships carrying land units to intercept since that would be a waste, but how can I specify this in a short ammount of time? And what hotkeys would be available to help me do this quickly?
Clearly, using ships as transports would at some point make things tedious. Another way to do it would be to make units capable of embarking and disembarking as they can now, without having to use dedicated transports and add a naval unit that has no purpose other than achieve naval superiority and guard or destroy armies that are moving by sea. The issue then is that this is very much like the tank suggestion in that we have 2 independant unit classes on the same territories.
About your concerns with the distribution of natural resources, I imagined that all water territories would produce income through fishing and could recieve upgrades such as windmill parks to increase profit. Some of these would also have more special resources such as oil available which can be extracted through the construction of oil rigs. I imagine that all of those would simply provide money in the end, though perhaps having acces to oil could have a special bonus such as increased unit speed. (like strategic resources in Civilization, it would only apply to connected territories)
Doing so would not necessarily unbalance maps. Most maps are already unbalanced to begin with because of the different sizes of countries you spawn in or next to along with factors such as the distance to neighboring territories when you spawn. Unless we insist that the distribution of such resources is also as it is in reality it is unlikely that this would make the problem worse. On the contrary, we could choose their locations such that they offset the natural inbalance that maps have.
Having them generate randomly would still be more likely to have a positive, rather than a negative result. To see why this is the case you can compare it to dice rolls. Imagine that there were a number of things that determined wether a spawn is good or bad and that all are rated one to six by using a dice roll. We roll one dice for every factor that contributes and the avarage outcome will determine how good/bad your spawn is.
A dice roll has an expected value of 3.5 but the result of rolling a single die is evenly distributed over the numbers 1 to 6. This means the chance of having the worst possible spawn is 1/6, the same goes for the best possible spawn. If we role two dice however than the chance of rolling an avarage of 1 (by rolling 1 both times) becomes 1/36. The most likely result is 3.5 exactly, with a probability of 1/6. Now imagine I rolled 1000 dice. The result is now almost certainly close to 3.5 and it is almost impossible to have a spawn that deviates substantially from this.
This means that, as the number of dice (or other random experiments) increases the avarage result becomes more and more predictable. This means that it is generally better for a strategy game to have either no random elements at all or to have many, in which case they will tend to normalise. It becomes incredibly unlikely to get "lucky" or "unlucky" since for everything that goes wrong there are many other things that can go right and vice versa.
The idea of oil being a strategic resource has me thinking about the potential of other such resources. Perhaps resources such as coal, iron, gold or other metals could each give their own benefits to whoever can obtain them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
@mikeyman10ash
"Also I call hearsay on both sides."
Please mention the specific parts of my posts you are referring to and tell me why you think they are "hearsay".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
@OrdinaryDarthvader
"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."
I have no obligation to respect your opinion if it consists of nothing but insults towards me and others. I have the right to defend myself against these gratuitous insults and accusations. The truth is that you are not asking for us to respect your opinion, you are asking that we unconditionally agree with you. Just so you know those are two completely different things. You claim that this "isn't a fair trial" but there is no democracy to being right. Even if the roles were completely reversed and everyone agreed with you that would still not make you right. In fact, if anyone has been making things hard for you it's you yourself. If it weren't for you making such absurd claims then people would feel the need to point out how wrong you are.
While I find it hard to believe that roblox would have had a past filled with rainbows and butterflies and the power of friendship like you seem to suggest I fail to see how this is relevant in any way. I find it sad that people would use such claims to make it seem like they have some sort of authority over others. The saddest part probably being that you can't even prove it. But if you want to know the real reason why roblox is all "Noobs wrecking things and people like you starting reply wars" you need only look into a mirror.
Anyone can go back to previous pages to confirm that you are the one who started all of this for no good reason at all. The fact that you continue to deny this says a lot about you. The only thing I'm not sure about yet is if you are just too proud to admit this or if you genuinely believe that some constructive criticism warrants a barrage of insults, since it seems like disagreeing with you is a horrible crime in your eyes.
You also continue to say that nobody can "predict" your personality or that we just assume things. The truth though, is that all we say is just the logical conclusion to be made from your replies. While you continue to repeat the same thing over and over you are constantly affirming the conclusions that we have drawn. You compare this to predicting when a spinner will stop but this analogy is completely false since we have all of your replies to support our conclusions. We are not just making blind statements here. We have evidence on our side.
All of the arguments you have used so far are various examples of straw man arguments, ad hominem and proof by assertion, and probably some other types of fallacies that I haven't distinguished yet. Not once have you made a sound argument, or pointed to evidence to refute my points. You could repeat your points a thousand times, none of us will be convinced if you don't bring in a proper argument. Instead of sending me pm's consisting of nothing but the word "idiot" hidden in a list of periods (I can and will report all such messages) you should focus on providing us with a convincing argument instead.
If you can't bring us a real, convincing argument that is not just an assertion of your points, a straw man or a personal insult I suggest you leave this thread and stop posting off topic insults. I asked you to do this before, but it seems like you ignored that along with all the other points I made.
|
|
|
There is nothing you can predict about me all of you. And look at Cubic Insanity. Betraying his supporters. I find that quite amusing. |
|
|
@mikeyman10ash
I think saying that he used an argument from fallacy is giving him too much credit, as it requires him to point out a flaw in an argument first. Instead, he just states that people are wrong without giving any reason. This would more appropriately be referred to as a "proof by assertion". The repetition can also qualify it as an argumentum ad nauseam.
@Theblackstar999
Again, we did not "predict" your personality. Everything we say is based on evidence and therefore a conclusion and not a prediction.
I want to hear real arguments. I am not the slightest bit impressed by your misrepresentation of my reply. If you can't come up with a reason why you are supposedly correct than you should probably stop posting.
So are you going to continue evading this part or what? |
|
|
you meant blackstar not me lol! -_- |
|
markrimaJoin Date: 2012-02-12
Post Count: 81 |
@TheBlackStar
Do not say I did not warn you....
"This thread is full of CubicBerserker's supporters" The reason we "support him" is because he is making claims that are valid and actually MAKES SENSE unlike you when you constantly state "You know nothing. Try to predict my personality still? You know nothing" Well guess what? Cubic managed to predict 4/5 of what you planned to do next. I count that as a success. Now I wish to put my own prediction into this, and I have the strange feeling I will receive a "perfect score" on the "prediction test". On the net post, you will attempt to defend yourself, and do extremely poorly in doing so. Then you will make a remark that will make absolutely no sense. Such as "Trying to predict someone's personality is like trying to predict the outcome of when a spinner stops spinning!" Well guess what? You DO know when it stops spinning, after a while it slows down, and you can easily guess when it will stop spinning. It works the same way with "you and your personality" You make pointless comments and rage when people try to help you about 5 times a day. And we will easily realize you are quite simply, a spoiled boy that does not understand where his place is in the world. You enjoy attempting to feel superior is sickening enough, but then to lie and act if you never did when all we have to do is press the mouse a few times and see it....
Now, back to my prediction then? I apologize, for I am a human my "wonderful master" and might stray from a topic. Just to have everything in one place, I will repeat my previous predictions, then state my newer ones. On the net post, you will attempt to defend yourself, and do extremely poorly in doing so. Then you will make a remark that will make absolutely no sense. Such as "Trying to predict someone's personality is like trying to predict the outcome of when a spinner stops spinning!" Then you'll make 1-5 sentences explaining how we do not know your personality, the to wrap it up you'll most likely claim how it is unfair since every one supports cubic...
@CubicBeserker
Thanks for the advise! But for the part where you were confused that the bomb will hit your own troops since you must bomb an adjacent area, that's the point! I felt that the bomb was a bit too powerful, and should come with some sort of price. I like the idea of you saying a percentage instead of a number, and thought about adding both. It should minus 10% from intentional bombing area, 100 being the very least, 8% from adjacent territories in the same country, 80 being the very least. And 5% from adjacent territories NOT in the same country, the least taking out 50 men. But to avoid people removing men from borders then bombing, if there is not enough men to "shield the blast" the territory will become neutral, and the amount of men that should of been killed, will instead be added. I forgot to mention that you can only buy 100-500 mercenaries at a time, and they appear in your capitol. Also you must wait 1 minute for a "recharge" My apologies for not clarifying this. Anything else you are confused about/ hate please let me know! I greatly enjoy thinking of ways to improve ^-^
|
|
|
@Cubic
I meant me and blackstar, not your argument.
~FINLAND!~ |
|
|
These are idiots. There are no more replies of Territory conquest ideas, now these noobs are trying to predict my personality but they only continue a flame war. You don't know me in real life, and you cannot make even an inference on someone's personality unless you know them in real life. You people do not know me, my life, or my relations with people outside of Roblox. You cannot figure out who I am in real life. This is the internet. All my posts could be little more than an act, hiding my true personality and identity. You keep forgetting. You do not know me unless you met me in real life. You can not make inferences on someone's life, personality, or other characteristics on the internet. You will never know if some "coolguy" is really a good person or some derp. I can defend myself infinitely, because you have no solid "offline proof". This is a forum war you can not win. |
|
|
anyways, can shobobo make the units more visually appealing and shaped similar to the conquers( if this is to be implimented add a unit-cap and slow down the unit generation) |
|
|
@OrdinaryDarthvader
Yeah it seems like I made a mistake while typing my reply. In my defense though it's only natural for a post as long as that to contain mistakes. I really wish these forums would have an edit option. And a quote option. And a way to jump to a specific page without having to browse through one by one. And that I wouldn't be brought back to page one after submitting a reply. And that I see the actual post I'm replying to instead of the last post that was submitted. And that my reply would be autosaved from time to time. I could probably go on for a while but the point is this is a terrible forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
@markrima
Yes it seems like a combination between a minimum number of troops and a percentage might be the best option. The thing with hitting adjacent territories is that sometimes the distance is huge while sometimes it's very small instead. It's also hard to think about a bomb powerful enough to have that kind of blast radius. Not even the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested, would be capable of destruction on this scale.
It's also completely unrealistic to assume that any nation would use such a thing knowing that it would hit allied forces as well. In reality, the public would never accept such a thing no matter what. One thing that might give it a more unique purpose is to take out territory upgrades. It could for example destroy any upgrades that are in the territory.
I feel like it's creation needs to be limited in some way, since it will obviously be more effective as army sizes increase. The last thing I want is a situation where they become strictly more effective than soldiers, resulting in everyone focussing on them. Limitations such as being able to only create one at a time could help in this case.
As far as the cost goes, I think it should require certain upgrades to be built first. If technology is added you would have to research it too. And if my idea of strategic resources is implemented it would require uranium as well.
As for the mercenaries, I think being able to increase the rate at which you can buy them would be a good idea. Also some kind of upgrade that allows you to hire mercenaries in a territory even if it's not the capital. The reason I'm saying this is again because the scale of the game increases over time. This means the problem would still exist in the early game while in the late game the ability to hire mercenaries would be too limited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
@mikeyman10ash
I assumed from the way it was worded that you meant me. Thanks for clarifying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
@Theblackstar999
First off, I continue to add on-topic content in almost all of my replies. You on the other hand have not added a single relevant line since your first 3 or so posts here. It's hypocritical to say that this thread is derailed since you are the cause of this in the first place.
So what you're saying is basically that this is all just an act? If not then what we are seeing must be real right? So you only really pretend to be like this? Let's look at the implications this leads us to.
To begin with I want to point out that the same reasoning can be applied to real life as well, since it's also possible to pretend to be a different kind of person in real life. Considering this we seem to arrive at the conclusion that it's impossible to ever know anyone. And I guess if we interpret "knowing someone" strictly enough then it's actually true. If you want to claim however that we can't make any valid statement about anyone then you are terribly mistaken.
So I wish to make some kind of valid statement about your personality. One that at the very least isn't terribly vague. I consider the fact that either one of two distinct possibilities must hold, or some combination of both:
1) This is really what you are like.
2) This is an act.
Note that it's entirely possible that you might be playing an act IRL while letting your true self show on line. One reason for this might be that here you are anonymous.
If we now assume 1) we find that you can't cope with constructive criticism, like to warp reality to aid your cause, find it unthinkable that others don't agree with you and generally feel superior to other people. The reasoning behind this has been extensively discussed by myself and others previously based on the replies you wrote.
If on the other hand we assume 2) we find that you deliberately pretend to be someone who conforms to the profile discribed above. In other words, you pretend to be all of the things I mentioned in 1). Before I try to draw conclusions about your personality from this I will first explore potential motives for doing so.
-Trolling. Perhaps you do this with the sole intention of annoying others because you derive some sort of strange satisfaction from doing so. Considering however that you started out by adding a suggestion here and only later turned to insulting me we can exclude this option since it means you didn't plan this in advance, a key characteristic of trolls.
-Spite. You pretend to be like this to annoy me because I criticised your suggestion. Since this in turn implies that you can't cope with constructive criticism (because of a sense of superiority) it's absurd to consider that you might pretend to be like yourself. This means that this motive can also be excluded.
-You enjoy being humiliated. And hence decided to take on absurd claims in the hope that we would all turn against you. I shouldn't even need to point out how absurd this is, especially since there are better ways to do this and again because you didn't plan this in advance.
-Somebody asked you to do this. Again implausible since you didn't plan this. Even if so it would still imply a weak character on your side.
-Random. Again unlikely since you started by making a suggestion. If I explore possible motives for doing random things I can think of only a sense of being unique and, indeed, superior.
-Dissociative identity disorder. While I think it's safe to say that this is unlikely the above reasoning would still apply to at least one of the alters. If this indeed the case I suggest you get some of the others over to clarify.
At this point I think it's safe to say that this list covers all, or at least the more reasonable, possible motives. As you can see I pointed out why each of them is either absurd or leads to the same conclusion as 1).
Since at the start of the argument I established that either 1) or 2) must hold and since every possible motive for 2) leads to the same result as 1) I conclude that the statements made in 1) must hold.
The beauty of this argument is that even though you can claim something is an act, the very fact that you are just pretending allows people to make conclusions after all. In this particular case things are even simpler since it's hard to find any plausible motive for doing so in the first place.
Note that this type of reasoning would not lead to any useful conclusions if we apply it to someone who appears to be a good person since there are many reasons to pretend to be nice. The Implications of being a fake are also different from those of being genuinely nice.
Your argument that the reason we can't predict your personality is because we are on line doesn't hold either since it isn't fundamentally different from meeting you IRL. While we can't pick up things like tone in your voice or body language we are still exposed to your written communication. The only scenario where this argument might be legitimate is if our conclusions are based on a misinterpretation of what you said. I'm going to go ahead though and claim that there isn't much room for misinterpretation when someone calls you an idiot.
At this point your only option is to either agree with this reasoning or to point out a flaw in it. Since you have such a rich history of giving sound arguments to disprove my logic I have no doubt we'll see a nicely structured proof of the contrary on your behalf. |
|
|
I honestly think you shouldn't have put so much effort into that.
It won't change his reply length or his view on this.
I don't think he'd change his statement that we are all your supporters even if we had him at gunpoint.
~Unless you are the Mongols~ |
|
markrimaJoin Date: 2012-02-12
Post Count: 81 |
@CubicBeserker
I can see what you mean with the mercanaries being too much at the beggining and to little near the end. I intended to avoid it being overpowered near the beggining by thinkning you should only buy them in the 100's and what ever the cost they are, you would not be able to afford it untill you are persay, atleast in control of 2-3 countries. For the part stating that they may be too weak when people are near the 1000's, that is the point of mercanaries. They are strong enough to just barely have an edge, if persay you have 500 men in a territory, and are being attacked by 600, the mercanaries can get you just enough men to even out the odds, or win. This is to make sure no one just purchases an army of 3000 mn as a sneak attack. I like the idea of an upgrade where you can purchase mercanaries outside the capitol, but I feel that asking for too much at one time would overload the genius who is in charge of scripting. I myself am terrible at scripting, so I am not sure whethear or not how hard it wold be.
About your concerns with the bomb, I think you are corret about a limit, I think there should be a player can only hold 3 bombs, if worsen beleives it is too much/little than he can change it. Now your beleif that it is un-realistic, well to be frank the entire game is slightly unrealistic. I doubt that any one in the world can conquer Europe in aproximitly 3000 seconds. And if the game were more realistic, than you would have to involve elections, where there is a chance that your citizens do not like how you rule, and an advisory would become the new ruler, owning your kingdom. So I do beleive the small amount of unrealsiticknessI have put in the bomb is a fair amount. And I have also mentioned (incase you mis-understood it or did not read it) Some draw backs of the bomb that will make players hesitate before using it. I lik the idea of upgrading the bomb, but like I said earlier, I do not wish to overwelm worsen. Besides these facts, I would imagine the bomb would be worth an extragevment amount, I would list a price, but I do not knoow how much income will be gnerated and how fast seeing Worsen can change it to 1000$ a second or 1$ a minute. If Worsen was going to make upgrades I have already thought of a few for the bomb. And I will list a few here for the general idea.
Toxic: The bomb deals the same damage as normal, but after the bombing, areas affected would begin losing soldiers over a period of time, aproximitly 2 minutes.
Nuclear: Bomb deals no damage, but any amount of soldiers going in or out lose half there men, Since it is so powerful, only the area bombed is affected, no neighboring territories, and it affects EVERY type of soldier that enters, whether its you an ally, or a nutreal.
Gas mask: this is an upgrade for the soldiers instead of a bomb, the toic and nuclear bomb do not effect your men, but normal bombs will do double damage, so that Gas mask is not over powered.
Those are just a few ideas, I am seriously in thought about these bombs, and how it can affect the game in such. I am also thinkng of asking that the bomb wont be able to affect the capitol, since the capitol must be captured un-harmed. |
|
|
Nuclear bomb. Killing all the units in a area of 5x5. if the radius covers more than half of a territory it is affected. less than half and only 1/4 units are killed.
Heres the catch.
Any territory affected more than half will be unusable for 10 min. It turns black having a wasteland and any attempt to send a army there the army dies at a rate of 50 units a second.
If ur sending more than 15k units it has a option to send a nuke.
The 15k units will be gone and the nuke fires in a ballistic path.
It should also have a fancy nuke explosion.
|
|
|
i think we should have underwater bases
i want to do airstrikes |
|
|
@OrdinaryDarthvader
I personally think that the abstract representation of armies is fine. If changing this is to be at the cost of a unit cap then I am strictly against it. I know a few flash games (Civilizations Wars, Phage Wars, Solarmax) that are similar in concept and one of the things that makes this game better (appart from the larger scale) is the fact that there is no unit cap. I don't think visuals should come at the cost of gameplay.
@mikeyman10ash
I consider it a good practise for my rhetorical skills. I generally prefer to be complete even if it means that my reply is quite long. In this specific reply I wanted to prove that it is indeed possible to draw conclusions despite the fact that he continues to claim we can't or that it might just be an act.
@markrima
The way I envisioned mercenaries is as something you can spend your money on if you're not interested in upgrades. In fact, I think that if you focused all of your effort on gaining money rather than soldiers it should be possible to have a military that is largely supported by mercenaries.
I would argue that this game isn't very unrealistic at all compared to most games. It makes many abstractions of reality but that in itself doesn't mean it's unrealistic. You can think of it as a game where things are represented by simple numbers. You aren't actually fighting with numbers, they merely represent real armies, the number being an indicator of strength.
At this point I think it's useful if I describe it in terms of "Willing suspension of disbelief". In every type of game or fiction there are things you can get away with and things you can't. The numbers are ok because they are just abstractions, much like health bars are an abstraction of your medical condition. Many other unrealistic situations are ok because implementing them would be too hard or because making them more realistic would hurt gameplay.
Ultimately however, they all have varying impacts on each player's willing supension of disbelief. Exactly how much you can get away with depends on the players themselves and the extent of their willing suspension of disbelief. At some point though it's possible to overextend it and people will no longer take it. To me, a bomb that has a variable radius and is aware of political boundaries is more than my willing suspension of disbelief can handle. And I like to watch anime shows (you need a LOT of willing suspension of disbelief for that).
I agree though, that it's useless to name a price now since we don't even know how much money we'll be making. In the end it's up to the creator to decide if and how he adds such a feature. I don't think we're "overwhelming" him here. He can just take note of any ideas he likes and implement them in the future. It'd be interesting to know though what direction he wants the game to move in.
I do have concerns about the gas mask idea however. (The same concerns apply to things like morale, experience, unit upgrades and generally anything that can make one soldier different from another. I think it would make moving units around problematic since there would be a need to specify not only how many, but also which units are to move to another territory. I can't see any good way of doing that without making things very tedious. Another problem would be in visual display of such armies. And I can imagine that any such feature would require an overhaul of how units work (from a scripting perspective). |
|
|
Maybe a World map and it takes long to travel oceans :D? |
|
|
Everyone starts with 100k men. They either get men VERY slowly, or they receive no more men. This will allow people to think about placements of troops. There will be no/little neutrals. It's just an idea, I got no names. Reply if anyone agrees, |
|
Ronster55Join Date: 2010-01-08
Post Count: 2739 |
I enjoy them all except the 1st and 4th one.
~ The official elf of the Forums ~ |
|
ReventiusJoin Date: 2011-05-26
Post Count: 58 |
We need upgrades nukes and vehicles so we can be more overpowered
|
|
AtherousJoin Date: 2010-03-07
Post Count: 120 |
Well, Considering how much stuff that has made this a war-ground, Lets get back to TQ.
=Government buildings=
-Capital Can be moved every 30 minutes. -Very costly, not worth it most of the time.-
-Administration office (Gains money over 10 seconds with 5$.) -100 many be made only and costly.-
-Fortress gains a (1/4 defense to the city.) -50 may be made only.-
-Factory (Can build tanks and other industry, Increases normal income by 10.)
-Dock (Needs a factory to be used.) -Builds sea vehicles.-
-Farms ( Produces Wheat on a small scale.)
-Large Farm( Produces Wheat on a large scale.)
=Resources!=
-Oil, (Used for vehicles.)
-Gold (Can be turned into 50$ per gold.) -Only 50 gold territories, Has a large amount of Neutral troops.-
-Lumber (Used for every building in the game.)
-Gas (Increases the income by 5.)
-Coal (Used by Docks if Oil or Gas is not available) -Other uses?-
-Wheat (Explained what it's for below.)
=Misc=
-Missiles (Damage the targeted city so it cannot produce.) -Used every 20 minutes.-
-Moral (Have wheat to keep your army's internal strength high so they fight longer and harder.)
-Artillery (Can be only placed in territories max of 25 in each.) -Destroyed if the territory is captured.-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you got any ideas, Respond to this!
Have a fun time guys. |
|