The irreversibilty issue of losing side
-
This is really annoying because it totally destroy flexibilities, long exciting games, reversing matches, hopes of losing side etc. It is even more clear in small/big maps. Losing side still could be able to reverse and win games despite having (example) %50 production disadvantage in mid games.
-
Limit the number of combat rounds.
Remove the feature where a nation loses all its PUs when its capital falls.These help reduce the win-more problem in the game.
-
@Schulz Well, don't you prefer Low Luck? The only way to make possible for the losing side to get back and win, with good players, would be having an enormous impact of luck. Probably the most feasible way would be having very powerful/unbalancing and very random techs (preferably not much dependent on their cost; for example, free techs) that make such a great impact so that, even if you are losing big time, you can still hope some new wondrous weapons will turn the tide.
-
Everybody hates losing. Quickly or slowly... losing sucks.
-
@Cernel Low Luck is must for fair game in small/Medium maps, But I would definitely prefer dice in big maps after the first round since units are less important and game is more reversible.
I wouldn't really want luck in games that plays huge role. My proposal would be mixing of negative national objectives and tech trees.
-
So, guess moving this to mapmaking, as I understand it is more of a discussion about how to make games in some ways, so I suppose it belongs to the development part of the forum.
