Tweet
Well, I did say it wasn't the only complaint with the interface. I also notice such inconsistencies as that some actions have buttons, while some require one to memorize a key.
As for the ideas... Actually, most of them don't even need THAT much extra coding.
E.g., if they already have the code for armies, how about just giving any unit the button to make an army? And I don't mean lose the unit and get an empty army instead, like happens with Great Leaders, but make a new army AND load itself into that army? And when the last unit has been unloaded, the army should disappear. (To also avoid the current screw-up of having armies with zero units in them.)
That should IMHO be a good enough a substitute for stack movement.
And if someone wants to say "but easy armies would unbalance the game", well, not if the AI uses them too. It would just become a game of armies-vs-armies, instead of a game of units-vs-units. And frankly, I'd prefer the AI to move 10 armies through my teritory than 40 individual units. Takes less waiting between turns.
E.g., if they also want to have Great Leaders, how about just making them a regular unit that doesn't fight, but gives a bonus to the army it's in? I mean, make him a kind of a support unit, like the artillery. Let's say, 1 extra hit point to any unit that's grouped with a Great Leader. (So basically conscripts become regular, regulars become veteran, venterans become elite, and elite becomes some uber-elite, because of benefitting from the wisdom and experience of a great commander.) I don't know exactly what their combat code looks like, but I can't see any reason why it should be hard to check if it's grouped with a Great Leader before starting the fight.
E.g., I really don't think it would have required ages to implement a system of public works, instead of a horde of workers that make the turns take half of forever. And then some. If nothing else, you don't have to code an AI for the automated workers, so it should more or less balance out IMHO.
As for the ideas... Actually, most of them don't even need THAT much extra coding.
E.g., if they already have the code for armies, how about just giving any unit the button to make an army? And I don't mean lose the unit and get an empty army instead, like happens with Great Leaders, but make a new army AND load itself into that army? And when the last unit has been unloaded, the army should disappear. (To also avoid the current screw-up of having armies with zero units in them.)
That should IMHO be a good enough a substitute for stack movement.
And if someone wants to say "but easy armies would unbalance the game", well, not if the AI uses them too. It would just become a game of armies-vs-armies, instead of a game of units-vs-units. And frankly, I'd prefer the AI to move 10 armies through my teritory than 40 individual units. Takes less waiting between turns.
E.g., if they also want to have Great Leaders, how about just making them a regular unit that doesn't fight, but gives a bonus to the army it's in? I mean, make him a kind of a support unit, like the artillery. Let's say, 1 extra hit point to any unit that's grouped with a Great Leader. (So basically conscripts become regular, regulars become veteran, venterans become elite, and elite becomes some uber-elite, because of benefitting from the wisdom and experience of a great commander.) I don't know exactly what their combat code looks like, but I can't see any reason why it should be hard to check if it's grouped with a Great Leader before starting the fight.
E.g., I really don't think it would have required ages to implement a system of public works, instead of a horde of workers that make the turns take half of forever. And then some. If nothing else, you don't have to code an AI for the automated workers, so it should more or less balance out IMHO.
Comment