| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Gon 
Wordsmith
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 117 |
 Posted: 17 May 2013 at 00:42 |
 Auraya wrote:
As for impassables, I'm less convinced. Perhaps, if there were new researches to make it convincing, I'd be happier with the idea.. but are we later going to do the same for volcanoes and fiery mountains? Seems like one rule for one, another for others. Some people will benefit, others will feel they have been discriminated against because their impassable tiles are still impassable.
|
Well it makes sense for a lake to have some food available . . . . a volcano . . . not as much. That doesn't mean that volcanos couldn't have something else, but probably not food.
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 00:57 |
|
Actually, volcanic soil is amazingly fertile so it would probably have a high food yield. Of course, activating their "food" might also entail activating other random events associated with such places that may best be left undiscovered. :)
|
|
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 05:40 |
|
I would also love to be able to extract minerals/gold from sea water :)
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 06:55 |
|
Allow the Sov!!!
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 07:41 |
|
Players with ocean-adjacent cities should be permitted to build nuclear power plants.
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 07:51 |
> Players with ocean-adjacent cities should be permitted to build nuclear power plants.
^^ or watermills! - bonus to crafting?
Aurordan wrote:
I would like to see it harder to defend than just plains, personally. It makes sense that a narrow strip of beach should be harder to hold on to than a solid square of land anyway. This seems like a fair compromise between completely impassable and fully open too. |
just to point out... this is exactly opposite. Narrow pathways / approaches are more defensible not less. A beach head should be one of the hardest things to attack imho. - M.
ps - it would be nice to be able to sov and fish my lakes...
Edited by Meagh - 17 May 2013 at 07:54
|
|
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 08:15 |
It's not a narrow approach though, it's a wide approach to a narrow beach head. Beaches are really hard to attack from. A counter-offensive from a town should be able to push back pretty effectively.
This works as a good compromise mechanically as well, because it makes the formerly unsiegable towns at least siege resistant.
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 10:39 |
Anjire wrote:
Actually, volcanic soil is amazingly fertile so it would probably have a high food yield. Of course, activating their "food" might also entail activating other random events associated with such places that may best be left undiscovered. :) |
Having a process to 'activate' an impassable square - lake, loch, volcano, whatever - would be a great idea. Players would then have the option to keep their impassable, impassable.. or they could open it up for food sov (or *other* things) which would allow military occupation too.
In fact, it might be interesting if the act of opening up impassables required scouting/spying and then military dispatched to secure the area, with a random troop loss to the dangers involved.. or something. Even a long term danger to troops which sit on the square? A bridge over the lake might randomly collapse, killing 200 troops on the square.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 17:23 |
Making water square more difficult to attack than plains seems like people wanting to have their cake and eat it too. The advantages of being able to claim a previously unsovable square for food (and quite possibly high food at that) probably outweigh the inability to be sieged. And if it doesn't, then the person can move somewhere else that has another type of impassable square.
The main reason I'm making this point is that asking the devs to design a new terrain type and combat type in addition to populating lakes and lochs with food values and turning sov "on" there and in the ocean ... means it probably won't get done. And possibly shouldn't, given all the other priorities.
I think it would be better to have something straightforward and simple that might actually happen.
Nothing wrong with these ideas, I just don't want people to get their hearts set on them, then rant when they don't get everything they want, which could make the devs wonder why they bother.
|
|
Harim Norfik
New Poster
Joined: 14 May 2013
Location: Mizorn Keep
Status: Offline
Points: 4 |
Posted: 17 May 2013 at 20:11 |
I like this idea for those squares. It gives more customization to your cities, opens up the option of sov for those that want it and leave the defensive nature for those that prefer that.
EvilKatia wrote:
.... Maybe a player could be given a choice ?Like they do this new research in sov and they can either transform the square into sovable food or leave it as a spot you cant be sieged from ?
|
|
|
Tweet
Forbidden Sov - Oceans, Lakes & Lochs
