Originally posted by Loopy
How can it possibly be considered sloppy progamming if the flag's there? Settlers and workers, in addition to representing a gameplay unit, are 2 population points and 1 population point respectively. Being able to airlift in population into captured cities would unbalance the game in terms of pop rushing, culture flipping, and city production. Very clearly a game design issue and not "sloppy" programming.
Leaders are also a game play issue. They're given three movement and no defense for a reason -- so you have to walk the leader to the city where you want to use it. Before you use the leader to rush a project or build an army, there's the risk that it'll be destroyed. That risk helps tone down the strength of leaders.
Armies could either be game design or sloppy programming. You could argue game design in that airlifting in a defensive army pretty much guarantees the city won't be taken. It could also be sloppy programming in that the programmers were having a hard time keeping the units together (see early stack movement).
Just because it's not the way you would have made it or because you wish you could exploit something doesn't make it stupid and sloppy programming.
How can it possibly be considered sloppy progamming if the flag's there? Settlers and workers, in addition to representing a gameplay unit, are 2 population points and 1 population point respectively. Being able to airlift in population into captured cities would unbalance the game in terms of pop rushing, culture flipping, and city production. Very clearly a game design issue and not "sloppy" programming.
Leaders are also a game play issue. They're given three movement and no defense for a reason -- so you have to walk the leader to the city where you want to use it. Before you use the leader to rush a project or build an army, there's the risk that it'll be destroyed. That risk helps tone down the strength of leaders.
Armies could either be game design or sloppy programming. You could argue game design in that airlifting in a defensive army pretty much guarantees the city won't be taken. It could also be sloppy programming in that the programmers were having a hard time keeping the units together (see early stack movement).
Just because it's not the way you would have made it or because you wish you could exploit something doesn't make it stupid and sloppy programming.
It's definitely a gameplay decision and not sloppy or stupid programming, besides you get the option to edit it.
But IMHO, it's a wrong concept. Airlifting settlers/workers unbalances the game? Like you can't already move settlers/workers into every city you're connected to by road, without a 1 turn penalty, and on the very same turn you conquered the city...
Comment