Re: Basic strategies for winning almost every map

[Matthias Grimm <matthias.grimm@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:30:23 +0200
Torinthiel <torinthiel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > As some you already know I like to see some more strategic value in
> > Crimson Fields too, but on the other hand we can't change too much at
> > once and quick shots are rarely good.
> 
> Well, what I'd like... No, not for crimson, it won't fit well here, but

I wouldn't say that. Crimson has the potential for a good strategic game with
a long lasting fun factor. 

> for some other project maybe. Have you ever played M.A.X. (not M.A.X.2)?
> It was strategy with ammo, different scan and weapon ranges, resource
> transportation, racial traits, base building and some technology
> improvements. And a strange system - it was turn-based, but all players
> made their movements simultaneously during turn, and waited for everyone
> (with some timeout possibly) when they've finished. It was fun, and I'd
> like to see something like this again.

I don't know M.A.X. but some of your listed features I would like to see in Crimson
too: Different weapon ranges are already built in, technological improvments are
well approached with the unit experience system but fuel and ammunition logistics
and the so called "fog of war" (you can't see only that parts of a map your units
have in scan range) are still missing.

> > I hope many experienced people will detect and remove all design flaws
> > before they become machine code :-)
> 
> or even source code ;)

That's what I meant. ;-)

  Best Regards
    Matthias