![[fr]](/mwf/flags/fr.png "France")
For gold :- Extract it (whit good explosives)
- Purge it (Foundry, and time)
- Melt it (Foundry, coal and time)
- Make gold ingots (Workshop, and time)
- Sell the ingots
We need to make lots of stages for do things
For metal :
- Extract ore and coal
- Purge them (Foundry)
- Burn ore to get metal (Foundry, and more time)
- Make metal ingots (Workshop, and time)
For wood :
- Find a tree
- Take a axe
- Cut off the tree
- Carry the tree to samwill (!2 players min! or a river, samwill will have a water entrie)
- Wait a lot
- Cut better the wood (Workshop)
For buying/selling items, we need :
- A market
- A bank
- A trade road for relay them
Like a ! destroyable/takable ! trader caravan :
Buy :
Market ----- Bank --------- Buy spot (---------- Market)
Sell :
Market -------- Bank --------- Sell spot (--------- Market)
The trader start and end everytime in the market
The player will need a big functionnal settlement to make a war, not just buy some flints and rush ennemy
Rules will desactivate this in some melees of course !
![[ca]](/mwf/flags/ca.png "Canada")
>We need to make lots of stages for do things
Why? I think it's very unnecessary to make 3 extra steps just to sell gold. All this extra time will make ridiculously long games... remember it is very common in CR to have a scenario that lasts over 3 hours already.
>For buying/selling items, we need :
Market is reasonable enough. However, banks and actual trade routes are too much imho. At most I could imagine is an NPC blimp flying down to trade supplies... and that is a bit far-fetched. It would be quite an immersive thing to see, but making the player wait just so he can buy perhaps 1 wood is ridiculous.
![[ua]](/mwf/flags/ua.png "Ukraine")
> making the player wait just so he can buy perhaps 1 wood is ridiculous
Agreed. That is why it is much more important to make player want CUT wood instead of BUYING it
I like the way buying/selling was implemented in CR. You have your home base - you can buy/sell things. The simpliest and most obvious solution for the "I can buy everything!" problem can be achieved not by implementing unnecessary complications in trading process, but to make gold a very rare find so clonks will have to act like they would have acted in the times where there were no banks/markets/economics.
> We need to make lots of stages for do things
And necessity for making lots of production stages is highly doubtfull, I think...
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
I'm still a huge fan of only making gold only sell-able. It both makes gold a lot more valuable and forces you to think more about producing things, because you are running out of money a lot faster.
This could be implemented as an additional flag for the base control library and turned on by default (for classical home bases at least). I am strongly for trying that out (making it default).
Oh, another tidbit from my conglomerate of base ideas: We could steal another CX concept and require a production building to buy the product (say, a chemical plant for a flint or a workshop for a lorry).
Here's my asorted list of reasons:
* Another advantage less for buying - now you have to have the building, no matter what!
* "Tent-bases" don't have the potential firepower of a nuclear bomb anymore (CoFuT).
* On the flip-side, good bases with infrastructure actually mean something.
* Taking out, say, the enemy chemical plant or workshop has a strategic meaning.
* Products always come from the same places, no matter from what you produce them.
* Consider when you buy 8 wood and 6 metal from the base, just to carry them over to the workshop to actually start building. If you buy directly, you save a lot of hassle running back and forth.
* The base menu only needs to offer very few things - essentially only what you need for building.
Here's my asorted list of reasons:
* Another advantage less for buying - now you have to have the building, no matter what!
* "Tent-bases" don't have the potential firepower of a nuclear bomb anymore (CoFuT).
* On the flip-side, good bases with infrastructure actually mean something.
* Taking out, say, the enemy chemical plant or workshop has a strategic meaning.
* Products always come from the same places, no matter from what you produce them.
* Consider when you buy 8 wood and 6 metal from the base, just to carry them over to the workshop to actually start building. If you buy directly, you save a lot of hassle running back and forth.
* The base menu only needs to offer very few things - essentially only what you need for building.
I like the idea>* "Tent-bases" don't have the potential firepower of a nuclear bomb anymore (CoFuT).
They still would. You would just have to have a chemical plant somewhere in your castle. Or do I get you wrong?
Well, one critical point of my concept - that I just took for granted there - is that I want to have some sort of intuitive and stable building-base-association. The idea is that whoever has his flag on the pole essentially owns the whole base complex, not just the base building.
In this logic, it's virtually required that tents wouldn't grant ownership to anything.
I'm not clear on the specifics yet, especially how you're going to "link" buildings together. I guess we would want a flag pole to have some kind of "zone of control", which is essentially an area where it's "home rules" for the owning player: Buildings can buy stuff, new buildings are automatically associated with the pole, vehicles are locked (?) and Clonks are healed.
Defining how this zone should work is a bit more tricky, especially if you consider the conflicts that could arise:
1. What happens if you are currently owning a castle, and your enemy is building a flagpole right in front of it? I'd simply have building of stuff forbidden in the enemy's zone of control.
2. What happens if you have (temporarily?) removed your flag, and your enemy builds a flagpole? Must be considered legal. If the enemy hoists his flag, the castle belongs to him.
3. What if there are two poles, and two different flag are hoisted? An interesting concept, especially for large bases. Possible solutions:
3.1 "majority voting" - whoever has the most flags up owns everything
3.2 only one flag - once a flag is up, all other poles are locked
3.3 sub-zones - whichever pole is nearest decides who the buildings belong to
The first two could make attacking a well-defended large bases pretty interesting (read: hard). The last one has all sorts of problems, but could make in-castle fights meaningful.
4. What happens when buildings are destroyed and another building falls out of the zone of control as a result? Straightforward, I guess - it becomes neutral (if there isn't another pole claiming ownership) and can be claimed by building a flagpole. Might be interesting together with large bases and options 3.1 or 3.2: Bring some explosives and do divide-and-conquer.
Oh well. Just thoughts for now.
In this logic, it's virtually required that tents wouldn't grant ownership to anything.
I'm not clear on the specifics yet, especially how you're going to "link" buildings together. I guess we would want a flag pole to have some kind of "zone of control", which is essentially an area where it's "home rules" for the owning player: Buildings can buy stuff, new buildings are automatically associated with the pole, vehicles are locked (?) and Clonks are healed.
Defining how this zone should work is a bit more tricky, especially if you consider the conflicts that could arise:
1. What happens if you are currently owning a castle, and your enemy is building a flagpole right in front of it? I'd simply have building of stuff forbidden in the enemy's zone of control.
2. What happens if you have (temporarily?) removed your flag, and your enemy builds a flagpole? Must be considered legal. If the enemy hoists his flag, the castle belongs to him.
3. What if there are two poles, and two different flag are hoisted? An interesting concept, especially for large bases. Possible solutions:
3.1 "majority voting" - whoever has the most flags up owns everything
3.2 only one flag - once a flag is up, all other poles are locked
3.3 sub-zones - whichever pole is nearest decides who the buildings belong to
The first two could make attacking a well-defended large bases pretty interesting (read: hard). The last one has all sorts of problems, but could make in-castle fights meaningful.
4. What happens when buildings are destroyed and another building falls out of the zone of control as a result? Straightforward, I guess - it becomes neutral (if there isn't another pole claiming ownership) and can be claimed by building a flagpole. Might be interesting together with large bases and options 3.1 or 3.2: Bring some explosives and do divide-and-conquer.
Oh well. Just thoughts for now.
Well, what are the reasons to realize that kind of base-zone-of-control concept? You only write about the problems that'd arise if it were implemented this way or that way but not about why this concept is a good addition the gameplay.Addition: What I can imagine of the concept sounds interesting so far, don't get me wrong. I'd like to see a big picture.
I'm aiming to, well, de-muddy the gameplay elements. Right now base control is some complicated matter of who has Clonks running around, which is loosely coupled to who's the owner of the base building at the center of the base. In fact, there are a lot of options how your base can be turned against you - so an attacker might actually be at an advantage: Flints lying around can be used to blow up your base, towers can be used to shelter enemy Clonks, etc. All great and good if you want chaos, but good base design and defense is currently pretty frustrating, imo.
So my intention is to make more of it direct: Base control is decided directly by who hoists his flag. Ownership directly translates to the kind of home rules you would expect from a well-prepared bunch of fighters (e.g. everything important locked down).
This simply needs some kind of concept of "where" your base starts and where it ends. And that's where the "problems" begin. But I'm not convinced that it's going to be impossible to get a positive side out of it, see above.
So my intention is to make more of it direct: Base control is decided directly by who hoists his flag. Ownership directly translates to the kind of home rules you would expect from a well-prepared bunch of fighters (e.g. everything important locked down).
This simply needs some kind of concept of "where" your base starts and where it ends. And that's where the "problems" begin. But I'm not convinced that it's going to be impossible to get a positive side out of it, see above.
![[pl]](/mwf/flags/pl.png "Poland")
What about assigning buildings to a mother base? The mother base would serve as a flagpole, but with actual meaning.
Let's say, the mother base in the undeground cavern would be in the middle and would serve as a colony's center. You wouldn't have to build flagpoles in order to take over the complex...
When you build buildings you would have to assign them to your mother base and seizing the control over the mother base (destroying it? occupying it for a moment?) would grant you control over all the buildings assigned.
There you can set many interesting limitations - number of assigned buildings limitation, no one can build another motherbase adjacent to the complex (especially directly in it), time between turning neutral and etc.. There are many you can think of.
Let's say, the mother base in the undeground cavern would be in the middle and would serve as a colony's center. You wouldn't have to build flagpoles in order to take over the complex...
When you build buildings you would have to assign them to your mother base and seizing the control over the mother base (destroying it? occupying it for a moment?) would grant you control over all the buildings assigned.
There you can set many interesting limitations - number of assigned buildings limitation, no one can build another motherbase adjacent to the complex (especially directly in it), time between turning neutral and etc.. There are many you can think of.
Yeah, manual assigning could work, too - I just felt that it would become a burden quickly. Ideally it should "just work". The other problem is that it might become unclear which building is associated with which base. You need some sort of distance restriction at minimum. Hence the "area of control" idea.
I think that it would do.
But then, the gameplay would get limited pretty quickly...
Even automated assigning would work. For an example, when you want to build something, you will see a circle of your control area. You must build inside it so that it assigns to a mother base. Step even further... You could make that buildings built without the mother base would be not working or could not even be constructed.
I had also an idea of a strategy games style: every building on the boundaries of the control area would make the circle larger. Making that every next building assigned to the control area would automatically resize the circle would be limiting due to, let's say, one level caverns or just flat terrains...
Forward outposts ftw!
But then, the gameplay would get limited pretty quickly...
Even automated assigning would work. For an example, when you want to build something, you will see a circle of your control area. You must build inside it so that it assigns to a mother base. Step even further... You could make that buildings built without the mother base would be not working or could not even be constructed.
I had also an idea of a strategy games style: every building on the boundaries of the control area would make the circle larger. Making that every next building assigned to the control area would automatically resize the circle would be limiting due to, let's say, one level caverns or just flat terrains...
Forward outposts ftw!
Ok, so forgot that :/But anyway, we need to make the players produce more, and buy less...
Yes. I mentioned that already much earlier.Even though we are not yet in the "settlement aspect development phase" it can't hurt to think about a more thorough concept (than this). Actually, now is the best time for that, for concepting how it should all look like in the sense of how MastroLindo encourages it: Think about the basic goals first - what do we want to achieve, what is it about, what shoulb b possible (and why)? - before getting to a solid concept that contains actual buildings and production lines.
Your statement is a start, but it takes a lot more to get to a good and complete concept.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
