Tweet
As the posters here know quite well, I am vehemently opposed to a UW, stacked combat, unabstraction of shields (wood, metal, stone, etc) and resources (i.e. 500 oil), a floating-point coordinate map, and SE. However, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of these if they were all put together 
My objection to them has been partly they don't feel like "civ" and that they don't integrate into the game well. However, combined, they fit together perfectly.
My idea is this - you don't have any difference between strategic resources and shields, and you have "amounts" of strategic resources (which include wood and stuff). Each "unit" is produced by a "factory". A "unit" is composed of a certain number of homogenous "unit types". A "unit type" has armament, armor, chassis, etc., each with its own resource requirements and the total of those requirements being the cost of the unit. People are a resource too for the purpose of unit building (so no more pop points), and some chassis (tanks, ships) require multiple people instead of just one (horses, infantry). A "factory" (which could be a Barracks for instance - factory is just a term for something that makes units) is "tooled" to produce a certain range of unit types. Within this range, all of the types have the same chassis and generally have similar armament and/or role. When you discover a technology, you can "retool" a factory to produce a different unit type (however, you cannot retool a Barracks to produce Cavalry - you would have to change an existing Stable for that).
"Armies" are a group of "units". Armies are the smallest controllable unit in the game, and exist at a fixed point on the map (whether floating-point coordinate, hex, or tiled, it doesn't matter). Armies fight each other, and aren't necessarily wiped out in an encounter. Armies can be set to different strategies, and while they exist at a certain point, in a coordinate system they have an "area of effect" within which they can do stuff.
Social engineering just fits in with this model, for me.
My objection to them has been partly they don't feel like "civ" and that they don't integrate into the game well. However, combined, they fit together perfectly.My idea is this - you don't have any difference between strategic resources and shields, and you have "amounts" of strategic resources (which include wood and stuff). Each "unit" is produced by a "factory". A "unit" is composed of a certain number of homogenous "unit types". A "unit type" has armament, armor, chassis, etc., each with its own resource requirements and the total of those requirements being the cost of the unit. People are a resource too for the purpose of unit building (so no more pop points), and some chassis (tanks, ships) require multiple people instead of just one (horses, infantry). A "factory" (which could be a Barracks for instance - factory is just a term for something that makes units) is "tooled" to produce a certain range of unit types. Within this range, all of the types have the same chassis and generally have similar armament and/or role. When you discover a technology, you can "retool" a factory to produce a different unit type (however, you cannot retool a Barracks to produce Cavalry - you would have to change an existing Stable for that).
"Armies" are a group of "units". Armies are the smallest controllable unit in the game, and exist at a fixed point on the map (whether floating-point coordinate, hex, or tiled, it doesn't matter). Armies fight each other, and aren't necessarily wiped out in an encounter. Armies can be set to different strategies, and while they exist at a certain point, in a coordinate system they have an "area of effect" within which they can do stuff.
Social engineering just fits in with this model, for me.
)).
But when you're right... 
Comment