[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: system logic fault (moving units into a building)

On Tuesday 29 March 2005 10:35 am, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > How about introducing something
> > like 'terrain hazards' or something?  Making it optional, of course.  It
> > would basicaly be the chances a unit will hit something that will cause
> > damage to it, incapacitate it, or worse case, kill it.  An argument can
> > be made to build the veteran status as well since the internal changes
> > that happen when you become a veteran happen as well when you go trudging
> > around swamps and thick forests, mountains, hills and stuff for
> > weeks/years.  And then the hovercraft would have a higher chance of doing
> > something stupid and dying in a light forest than it has on the water? 
> > ;)
> I don't like that. We're not quite like chess, but we aren't roulette
> either, and I'd like to keep it that way. Besides, it would very much
> disagree with the KISS principle, much more so than adding ammo or fuel
> IMO.

I can go with the KISS violation.  :)  I just sometimes wish I could move 
units across land like they do in war movies, which means they can go 
anywhere, no matter how dangerous it is.  :)

> (And I always hated the trireme in Civ...)

Get the water set right and the trireme is all you ever need.  :)  Global 
conquest before gunpowder, I always say.  (Yeha, yeah, I know, it was always 
better to have lots of water and sit on an island and build 4 really kick-ass 
cities and pretend to be English)


> Jens

La-dee-dee, la-dee-dah.