morphles wrote:@long turn link, well it does not seem to be all that important for non ladder games, which I doubt this will be. Though if GT gets resurrected, points from this game could be used I suppose. Ether way I do not see a problem with such scoring.
Suggested alternate endings are not all that bad, even if quite anticlimactic
I guess for most simplicity, I'll maybe implement (if busyness and laziness do not get me) something like: if player has 5 (maybe 7) wonders, game ends, said player gets x "game points", this might adjust his rank, and then score can be calculated based on something like your ranking.
For other suggestions, almost surely no to more workers. In my tests I start with 2 workers. Live game can be 3 workers, 3 settlers and 3 explorers, thats plenty enough. Also terrain improvement should require investment, in this regard one could even think that starting workers are unfair with regards to military play (why not starting warriors with equal shield cost to workers? that would be 6 warriors for 3 workers ).
I'll think about settler cost, maybe it can be reduced by 10-5 shields.
morphles wrote:I can understand you argument (even wondered about that myself) while at the same time I do not approve much of it. And one can make counter arguments. Just because there are roads in Alaska and Siberian tundras does not mean that much trade is happening there. Yes goods are being transfered by those roads, but trade is no coming from there (though somewhat better rates possibly come from there), but main trade is not there and very most likely explanation would be that there is no one there to "exploit" the passers-by by providing shelter or foot. I.E. there is no taverns and motels in swamps and tundras .
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest