We really want to avoid having to build “workers” or some other construction unit to build out of city improvements. But at the same time, we’d like it to be more interesting than simply clicking “build road to city X”.
What do you think?
You don't keep track and spend the points at all. You simply tell the game "I want a road from here to there". The rest is taken care of behind the scenes away from the player's eye.
Although its not obvious what is happening as multiple roads get built in different places at the same time in different speeds. I would prefer a linear build queue that is capable of adding to top and bottom (just like the city build order in civ4).
Would the points not be some arbitrary nonsense that is hardly fun at all?
I still like the 'army builds road' idea. That way players will need to think about building buildings or building an army, building both would be draining for the economy. Also it means that having a standing army is needed, even when diplomatic relations are excellent and a war is not imminent. This reflects the need for a military even in times of peace.
All in all I like the choices this brings over any system that awards points or somesuch nonsense for building roads. I can see the logic of trails being build by caravans without any effort, and I can see such a meagre trail evolving into a better track, but transforming that road into a stone road without any worker unit or anything, I think having an army doing that job for you is an excellent and natural way of going about.
Army strength should be a consideration is player vs AI diplomacy anyway.
In stronghold I think they used a 'troops build sheehat' system for things like pitch ditchs? (im not sure, was long ago) But that only works because of the small scale and the 'setup for comat' gameplay.
It seems like it would need serious micromanagment to get troops to build roads. Either it becomes a pusedo-worker like horrible Civ4 style or its automated and you either have troops trapsing from positions into dens of evil as they try to build a road a hundred tiles away or your roads never get built because theres nothing in the area.
On the micro issue: you can set waypoints and give the order to build a road from point to point like you could in Civ IV. It was very simple to lay down roads in Civ IV using the alt+r command. I see not why it should be a huge micro issue in elemental.
Also the issue of roads being not build for ages is something you take into consideration while planning to found a new settlement. If you know you need soldiers to get from town A to town B and you have non ready to build the roads, your planning is messed up and you need to consider how to get a road build - or if you even want a road considering the fact that they are not easy to get.
If there is nothing in the area, why would you even build a road or a settlement there? That last point you made against units laying down roads seems to me like an issue with bad gameplay rather than managing the road building.
Okay heres an example, the back of my territory has an ally player. He wants to put units to the orther end of my boder, through my territory. I want to build a road through my territory for that reason. Im assuming local citys will have units but I don't want to take them out because of unrest|ninjas|marauding dragons|I will forget to put them back and bad things will happen.
There is nobody capable of doing any work (like pesenats) through out my ENTIRE empire? I need to train some soldiers esppecially or bring back some units from the front like to build a road? Shurely you can't be serious!
You do not have to "train some soldiers esppecially or bring back some units from the front like to build a road"... It is a choice you make. Where do you need your soldiers the most, at the front or building roads? You can decide. You need soldiers elsewhere? Cool, but no roads for you. Need them to battle "unrest|ninjas|marauding dragons"? Cool, but those roads are not going to build themselves. Better think creatively or decide what is more urgent, fighting said factors or building roads.
A lot of the issue is preparation too. If you need roads to the front, you can see this coming and build a road. Or not... It all depends on how quickly your opponent can reinforce as well of course. If the enemy has no roads either then some of the pressure is relieved from you as well.
In the end I am not opposed to roads just appearing because of the traffic from trade caravans and such create them, I am otoh very much opposed to a system where peasants who happened to lie around being useless, 'road points' generated for some arbitrary reason or magical road fairies build them.
There is nothing creative about building a road. Your empire never changes? No new threats arise? No borders change? I don't want to micromanage indavidual units to build roads. I want to tell my empire to build a damn road. Here. Get it done you worthless bunch of fools!
I should not have to personally send a messenger to the captain of an elite unit of skull crushing death warriors that they are being recalled from thier front line duty so I can connect a trade route in the peaceful south. They would rather die!
Pesants. Those are the useless idiots that I exploit to build things, not my most valuable brutes! Your insane, off with his head!!
Peasants do not build roads in real life you know... They could, but they don't. No one asks you to assing your elite units from the front to do road building, but keeping assigning guards in time of peace to build roads seems like not a bad idea to me.
You also make it sound like you will have to handwrite down the note which orders the road to be build. In reality all you need to do would be to select a unit, click on the road building icon, select the route and watch them build the road. It is not that intensive on the micro.
When threats arise you had better anticipate. Of course borders change and new threats arise. Then you need to anticipate and see what roads you need to build and which ones can wait. Assigning the reserves honnorary guards to build roads seems fine to me, you make it sound like I propose a system there the elite units need to be called back from the front in order to make a path to someone's front door. Of course we are talking about major routes that get build in reasonable time because you plan it to be so. you roder this to be done before you go to war. I am sure that during a war you have other things to do for the soldiers.
Of course if the 'peasants' you speak of need to be recruited in order for them to build roads then we are essentially talking about the same thing. It would be a 'worker' type of unit. If you are saying that the roads should get build without any effort from the player, then I oppose to that. I like having something to do at the start of a game, even when it is something like building roads. I oppose to any system where roads are build by 'road fairies.'
One more advantage to building roads with units: you can stop at any time you want and turn the units elsewhere. Road building as it is right now cannot be stopped and I would imagine it cannot be stopped when you simply order roads to be produced and they magically appear.
Anyway, let us agree to disagree. We both made our point. I for one do not shy away from a little micro and I would applaud it if the road building required a little bit of imput from the player that goes beyond clicking from a to b. Forcing the player to think and plan ahead is a huge plus in my book.
Pissants, are abstracted. I don't like any worker units in TBS. They are only facades upon unnessesarry mico-managment. I should be making fun desisions, managing interesting resources or whatever. I don't see why I should tell indavidual units to do something so mundane as build a road which is a nessesity for a funtional empire. When a unit attacks something thats an interesting (some of the time anyway) event. I don't tell the smithy to build weapons, not in this scale of game. Even Anno where you build actual weapons (or settlers, whatever) you build roads really really easily since they are a nessesity that is part of manament (setting up fast, efficent roads is a fun thing to do but you can just plough them with no thought).
Just to make it clear, I do like 'planning' roads in TBS but not microing them.
I see your point. Where my opinion differs from yours is that I find it fun to actually plan where I need roads and how soon I need them.
What also is a plus for soldiers building roads is that it forces a player to think about building soldiers. In Civ multiplayer, any player who would play the game like in singleplayer gets beaten pretty bad because the game does not force you to put up at lease some minor defenses. If the soldiers would also build roads, everyone would need soldiers. More soldiers can build more roads, so having increasingly more soldiers when your empire grows will really pay off. that way you will need more and more soldiers when your empire grows. It is quite a natural way of easing the player into the need for soldiers.
I see why you would think the task as mundane and redundant, but I for one like to think about things like these. Also it requires the player to think ahead and to think about where to allocate your resources. At least it forces you to think more about these things like you would do in settlers. It makes the game more interesting for some players and more tedious for others.
In the end I think we both did a fine job defending our way of thinking about things. Let us stop hijacking the thread, shall we? I trust we both said what needed to be said. I shall not reply any more as I feel nothing can be added from me. I am confident my point got across and I feel like I cannot convince people why my way is more fun than your way, especially when my way integrates those things that you dislike.
Maybe have roads build naturally between 2 citites that have some sort of an agreement or are from the same nation. The roads would build x tiles a turn or somehting. Of course you would not have a say as to what path the road takes. If there needs to be a bridge, ti would be buitl at a slower pace.
Just have the Cities build the roads. If soldiers are present "maybe" they can help speed the process.
I would rather have Armies build "Fortresses" and assign a certain portion of their troops to garrison the fortress. Roads are optional.
Pushing military units into a road-building role moves them away from the massive game system they're intended to interact with, which is combat. Combat already has its own choices -- risk your army in this battle, or hang back? Defense or offense? Fast travel on a road, or concealed travel through a forest? Not to mention the entire tactical combat system. Imagine an existing game, let's say Civ 4, with a design change intended to give military units a domestic option. Now cavalry in Civ 4 are still cavalry, but they're also used to dig wells. You want a well, you've got to bring in a cavalry unit. Never mind that this is micromanagement, or that you have another set of options that cavalry are supposed to be interacting with...
Not my idea of a good time.
Its certainly not the best choice. However ... I think a moving army of Infantry should be THE way to build a fortress. I mean, building a fortress implies an active garrison, and what better way to build a fortress than to use the garrison for its contruction.
However, things that are not primarily military based, like Roads, Walls, and other improvments, should be purely City-based construction projects.
Things like anti-personell mines, anti-tank mines, anti-tank barriers, sand-bag bunkers, and clay-mores should be constructed by regular infanry OR specially equipped combat-engineer infantry, I feel. (A WWII abstract to portray my point)
A lot of games tie fortification to armies staying in one place. Kohan, for example -- leave a unit somewhere, and it fortifies automatically. Move it and the fortification is lost. I endorse this idea for Elemental -- end turn without moving an army, and the army fortifies. Do it again, and it fortifies further.
I like this idea, but only if there were some representation in the tactical battle. For example:
Turn 1: move into a forest square.
Ooookay .... but I would like to construct ACTUAL fortresses as well.
they are used all the time ... smaller than castles, little to no civilian population ... an oversized military outpost with thick walls and (in later eras) lots of cannonfire.
I suppose this brings me back to wishing Keeps and Fortresses had turrets, and that if you built a city attached to a Fort it could upgrade into a Keep.
However, there are fortresses of all sizes ... and I would like to see defensive networks be buildable by People who are into that sort of thing, and have enough stone for it to be feasible. Say, a series of Fortresses and Walls, with the occasional Gate, with roads from the forts and roads to the cities. A fort with walls on either side, and the gate going through the fort ... would be a VERY well defended stretch of land
Potentially a Marginot Line-esque defensive line (but with archers instead of cannons), and lets not forget the Land-Mine-esque magical traps. (Marginot Line *was* effective, actually, and the Ardennes offensive would of never worked if the Allies had coordinated, instead of arrogantly upholding their Rivalries and such. The French had more Tanks than the Germans!! and most of them were used in full Armored collumns. The strength of the Germans was actually in their Coordination and Defenses. The West simply couldn't afford (or didnt want to afford) attacking the German line due to the massive fields of German mines. Mines were a relatively new invention of warfare, as was the hollowed-explosive. The germans were the first to use these in the opening years of WWII (or at least the opening round) ... they used Hollow Explosives to destroy the "indestructable" turrets at the Belgian Fort Eben Emael. That being said, even with the first usages of Airborne Infantry, Gliders, and hollow explosives ... the Germans were in some ways technologically and industrially behind the allies in the opening curtain of the war. It was only after the capture of France that Germany had a much better production of tanks and planes. Of course, that started to turn sour with the Allied Bombings from Britain ... but that is aside the point.
The point is that a Marginot Line could of worked in a WWII setting, and in fact the Pre-WWII Nazi Germany spend MOST of its Military Budget on DEFENSES!!!! lines of bunkers with similar function as the marginot, as well as vast fields of anti-personel and anti-tank mines. Also, Poland did have some tanks and planes, and the Polish Cavalry was simply a way to get the Polish elite infantry where they needed to go quickly. They weren't charging tanks on horseback, they were riding to Point B, and attacking/killing the German supply train trying to get from Point A (fuel) to point C (stalled line of tanks). In fact, the Polish military devised effective strategies for attacking/destroying tanks that were stalled in such a manner. Generally all trapped onto a narrow road-way.
That being said, I think we should have the option to build up Mundane Defenses and Fortifications (as well as raise up mountains as stated earlier ofc) ... such as walls, roads, and Fortresses.
I assume there will be options for making cities more defensible -- in terms of walls and wall upgrades, in terms of layout, in terms of defensive buildings, garrisons, spells, and even choices about where to place new cities. These are the built-up strongholds, the real siege points -- the places where long, large, complicated battles will be fought for immediately applicable high stakes.
But field fortifications, how much are you going to build? A stockade or palisade, pit traps, trenches, berms, stakelines, a position on a hill? Very effective stuff, readily built. A permanent stone fortress, though, a castle -- that's not just digging in, that's a direction for city development.
Not necessarily--look, for example, at the Great Wall. Huge stone fortifcation, but no city. Also, sometimes its important to hold a position where having a city would absolutely suck (think narrow mountain passes). You'd want to have an impressive, permanent fortress there, though.
Given the focus of the world of Elemental, wouldn't a massive, map-altering project like the Great Wall be better represented as a spell?
Still not seeing the point against units building roads. As I stated earlier, it is not like your elite units should do it, at least not in times of war or combat. You let the guards who barely have any other function do it. You know, those units that you barely need to keep the peace? Those may as well build roads.
Also when amassing an army you invariably have some units that are trained first while waiting for the army to grow in size. They can start building a road. Later when the army grows more and more units commit to the road building, until finally you have enough to actually wage a war. Then you can leave the road building for what it is and just engage in combat. Never did I suggest that your soldiers should actually come back from the front in order to pave a little barely worthwile peace of road.
Also in between wars you tend to have some veteran troops that have no function besides being on hold for the next war. they therefore have quite a few spare turns left before their services are needed again. They are free to lay down roads, so they may as well.
Also note that anything from a lowlife with nothing but a club and those with a steed, well armed and equiped both count as soldiers. The poor equiped clubmen barely have a function anyway, a sane man would not send them into combat. Why should they not build roads? 'Just have the cities build the roads' sounds like road fairies to me, magically laying down roads to battle a very tiny bit of micromanagement.
At the start of the game, there is very little to do besides building roads. What does it matter if the one unit of soldiers you have have to lay down a road? I see how the 'auto-build' road system reduces micromanagement insofar that it requires maybe 3 less clicks. It does however take away from planning and managing the nation. If that is your idea of fun then that is perfectly cool of course, but I am looking for something a bit more challenging, even if it is a tiny bit.
Love the idea of stationary armies building fortifications btw. Maybe it should be unlocked with warfare techs?
Two problems.
1. Now we're back to the workers-build-roads model that Stardock (and I) wanted to get away from.
2. So the garrisons you build to defend the cities in case of unforeseen emergencies will... leave the cities to build roads? The soldiers you need in town to quell unrest won't be there? Doesn't sound like such a great plan.
Let me get back to first principles here. Variable levels of complexity between game components are a design tool, and the complexity goes where the focus goes. Elemental could have a highly complex road system, and if roads were all there was, or the point of the rest, that would be good.
But this is Elemental, and it's a spiritual successor to Master of Magic, not Railroad Tycoon. Its core areas are armies, cities, and magic. We've got some idea of how those systems are going to be complex. For armies you've got recruitment, equipment, magical assistance, the whole tactical battle aspect. For cities, there's city management, and -- as with Master of Magic -- you can build buildings in your cities to expand their capabilities, and cities are connected to revenue and recruitment and resource collection. For magic, there will be a two-layered magical resource system (nodes and mana), combat spells in the tactical battles, overland spells on the map, global spells, summoned creatures, terrain effects...
The point is that there's complexity where the complexity goes. Intricate, attention-demanding gameplay mechanics for roads are only going to diminish the core areas of the game. Elemental needs ten player-selected types of road like it needs ten player-selected types of breakfast. The best realization of roads in Elemental will leave them subordinate to cities and magic, and provide a modest, simple benefit to armies.
With organic roads, roads can become a layer of city management rather than their own noisy but ancillary show. With spells that influence roads, players can pursue magical goals in order to manipulate road systems. (Presumably the contest for nodes and the acquisition of mana are driving forces in Elemental gameplay.) And with armies that don't build roads, the roads serve the armies and not the other way around.
Then again, with roads between cities you may not be able to order a road being built between a town and the border with a neighbor. What if I want that because I plan to invade?
I see your point though even though I disagree it will distract from the game. I do not feel like roads are secondary though. In an empire management game roads are vital to the economy. They are not things of secondary importance.
Whatever may be of that, would it not be great if there was a system where the road fairies laid down roads between cities and to have the option of the army laying down roads wherever else it sees fit?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
