Accounts e-mail HP

King or no king?

King or no king?

Poll ended at Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:06 pm

Yes King
4
40%
No King
6
60%
 
Total votes : 10

King or no king?

Postby AdamAltabbaa » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:06 pm

Game's with kings are fun, But if we are playing a WW1 scenario, King's seem to be obsolete. I don't want a paratrooper ending my game abruptly.
AdamAltabbaa
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:19 pm

Re: King or no king?

Postby Davide » Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:30 pm

We also have a patch to allow for multiple leaders: when them all are killed, game's over.
BTW it's a leader, not king, so the feeling of obsolescence may vanish :)
User avatar
Davide
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:34 am

Re: King or no king?

Postby morphles » Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:05 pm

I like leaders, but single leader is not cool though. So I'm for multiple. And hope we wont be playing scenario :) Somehow I'm not fan of scenarios, or more fan of random stuff.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: King or no king?

Postby morphles » Sat Jan 18, 2014 9:39 am

Was thinking more about kings, the general idea of game loss unit is very nice, but due to asyncronious turn based nature having only one might cause you to loose him in unexpected ways, thats why I advocate for more. That was already said, though.

Now other thing, I talked about parallels between leaders and commanders from spring rts in :
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=622&start=0#p2168
Then it seems Lord_P had some good ideas of his own, very similar to what I'll suggest now:
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=622&start=10#p2321

The general idea is to make leaders do something so that they wouldn't just be passive tokens placed in some hard to reach place. For example in spring, at least at first half of game comanders are integral in offence and defence as they have very high building and repair power so they can help units a lot. Also depending on game can have some super power(basically insta kill, to anyhing in line, allied/own units included) attack that is limited by resources (and short range). No need to have such a drastic things here, but some incentive to utilise kings in frontlines or econmy could make game more interesting. Since not using them would mean that you start to lag behind, while if using them you should be very carefull.

Ideas:
    act as fotress, like Lord_P suggested, though that might be a bit too powerfull and/or end up in unpredictable loss.

    Have hefty attack (maybe increasing with tech)

    Increase attack (or defence) of units that are in the same square (though increasing defence seems like a bad idea)

    Some kind of super worker status, build terrain improvements fast, also possibly be able to build fortress even without contruction (they are kings after all and want castles:) )

    Extended vision, though iirc they already have vision 2, could be extend more of course

    And probably most interesting for me: king with spy (or at least diplomat abilities)

    Can of course also be combination, I would probably go for super worker(+ fortress anytime) + spy

    Can be three different kings with different abilities each.

    Edit: two more -

    heal units on the same square(maybe even adjacent)

    increase output of square it's standing on, significantly, let say 200%, thus you might want to place king on that minable railed coal square to get lots of production, though if city is built on such square leader will again be just showed into city....

Well so much for wildish speculation. Thoughs on that? (also there is pesky deatail of implementing such changes, but from my current understanding most of mentioned things should be doable with ruleset modifications only)
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: King or no king?

Postby XYZ » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:13 pm

I love to play with king in normal civ but I think it's problematic if you play greatturn. Imagine if all you're nation disappears in one single shot meanwhile you are absent! In normal freeciv you can respond quickly to a threat but here not; therefore a normal king is not an option!
User avatar
XYZ
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: King or no king?

Postby morphles » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:22 pm

Well, multiple kings kan kinda solve that, unless people are dumb about placement of thier leaders. In gt6 there were lots of people who kept all leaders in the same place, for god knows what reason. As for dissapearing in on single shot, well the likelyhood of that heppening depends on a scale somethat. If map/your civ is small, sure, but with siziable civ you can keep leader in the middle, or you can even try distributing your leaders to allies if you trust them (and t there are multiple leaders). Well with advent of spies some things get more complicated as spy on rails can check out lots of cities quickly and discover the leaders. Still, i'm enjoying gt6 and that is leader based game. I also think it can be a bit of a balancing factor. As you can eliminate much stronger opponent with some luck, good planing and execution of assasinations.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: King or no king?

Postby Davide » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:33 pm

Outcome: No king.
User avatar
Davide
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:34 am


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron