Fun İssue
-
Is it just to me that maps mostly lose their fun aspects even if played relatively few times regardless of how good and balanced are?
I've enjoyed with NML and 270 BC only for a very long time. They are distinct with more starting options and nations that doomed to fall which provides more different gameplays.
Lack of some randomness and unexpected situations makes every game experiences too similar. Because after certain rounds when you start outproducing your opponent, competitiveness immiadetaly disappear because nothing really change the tide of match at that point.
I would like to see some suggestions that could make game experiences more unique and competitive also giving some winning chances to underdog player that heavily outproduced is essential.
-
@Schulz using "DICE" always makes things random.
-
Dice makes better but definitely not enough to chance tide of games for underdogs.
-
@Schulz never fear, Underdog is here!
-
@Schulz Well "fun" is hard to define and varies per player. I think its probably better to talk about certain aspects that potentially make it fun for you (or others). It seems like you identified 2 things already:
- Randomness and number of options - Games play out differently each time and there are a lot of different roads to victory. This has to do with a good balance where nations can execute different strategies as well as having enough variety across types of units and other areas to make lots of different options available.
- Runaway leads - Once you have a certain lead, it just snowballs. This is fairly difficult to deal with and to some degree you also don't want games to last forever either. I think good examples of mechanics that helps minimize this to some degree are some form of "pop" or "upkeep" to limit how many cheap units you can build (Civil War is a very good example of this) and asymmetric victory conditions which can make it so there are different paths to victory for each side and its not just a who gets the most production race.
-
- Randomness and number of options - Games play out differently each time and there are a lot of different roads to victory. This has to do with a good balance where nations can execute different strategies as well as having enough variety across types of units and other areas to make lots of different options available.
Unless it is dice dependent, this is no actually true variety, but just coming out of the fact that when different strategies are about as good, nobody can be really sure what's the best one, even though one of them has to be (thus, the more the game is researched and played at higher levels, the less the variety). Of course, if the game is very complex and the options very close, this can assure nobody will ever be reasonably certain what's the best thing to do, variety being kept.
-
For giving some winning changes to underdog. There could have been this kind of optional features.
-
They receive attack-defense bonuses when they are fighting in their original territories.
-
Unlocking limited extra income technologies if player being significantly outproduced.
-
-
@Schulz One thing I had considered is a minimum income trigger. That if a nation is reduced to a certain threshold a trigger fires giving them either a limited PU increase or access to specially priced units over the course of a certain number of turns.
-
That would be awesome, I hope the developers will seriously consider implementing this kind of features.
-
@Schulz Many of these things are already achievable.
-
@Schulz One thing I had considered is a minimum income trigger. That if a nation is reduced to a certain threshold a trigger fires giving them either a limited PU increase or access to specially priced units over the course of a certain number of turns.
Kinda like a stimulus I like it
-
@beelee I'm always stimulated.
-
@redrum said in Fun İssue:
"I think good examples of mechanics that helps minimize this to some degree are some form of "pop" or "upkeep" to limit how many cheap units you can build (Civil War is a very good example of this) and asymmetric victory conditions which can make it so there are different paths to victory for each side and its not just a who gets the most production race."Asymmetric victory conditions for WWII in Europe could be that the allies must conquer Berlin within a certain number of rounds or the axis win. Presumably the game would be balanced slightly in favor of the allies so that the axis would have some chance (though not much) of winning outright but another main way they would win would be by conducting a successful defense against the allied counteroffensive. This would perhaps maintain suspense and interest to the end of the game.
Another thing would be to use national objectives to add income to a country's own territory so that it would not gain as much from conquered foreign territories as from its own. This would lessen the "snowball" effect. Germany is stronger after it conquers France and Eastern Europe but not so much so that it could necessarily easily stop an allied counterattack.
-
Doubling unit costs and setting up games dice would definitely help too.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login