You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.11 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Questions/Comments on Settlements
Bottom
Topic Subject:Questions/Comments on Settlements
RF_Gandalf
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 02:46 PM EDT (US)         
The settlement concepet in AOM will have some plusses and minuses. Many will dislike the idea of NOT having the option to put a TC next to any desired resource. Players like that freedom of choice, and booming is a good option on some maps or against some players. The idea of only being able to build TCs on settlements seems confining - why shouldn't I be able to build where I want? And if these settlements are placed by a random map generator randomly, they may be of little use for resource collection as secondary TCs are in AOK. So far we have no idea how many settlements are to be placed on maps (will it vary by map size or by map type, or a pre-game selection?) or the distance they are from player's starting areas.

I do like the idea of the settlements being a boost to pop number so as to make them an important focus of control - it will be interesting to see how this plays out. This is a 'real-life' type of feature.

I was thinking that perhaps ES could handle TCs and settlements like this:
---As previously described, control of settlements will increase pop cap and be an important "resource" to control
---TCs can be built anywhere a player wants but without an increase in pop cap if they are not on a settlement
---TCs built on a settlement cost a little less than those built at other sites

These features would retain a player's ability to use TCs more widely, and build up his villager pop rapidly if he is denied access to enough settlements, while still giving some advantage to the settlements.

I assume that the number of and placement of settlements will be a scriptable feature in custom random maps, so if we desire we may be able to make maps with more or fewer settlements than the ES standard (if there is a standard in this game) if gameplay indicates the need or desire for a change.

Any thoughts on these ideas??

[This message has been edited by RF_Gandalf (edited 04-04-2002 @ 02:50 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
shelper
HG Alumnus
(id: Smileyshelper)
posted 04 April 2002 03:47 PM EDT (US)     1 / 11       

Quote:

I assume that the number of and placement of settlements will be a scriptable feature in custom random maps, so if we desire we may be able to make maps with more or fewer settlements than the ES standard (if there is a standard in this game) if gameplay indicates the need or desire for a change.

the number of settlements can be stated before the game, much like what civ you will play and what map type


It's like watching a flock of clown-like apes trying to navigate a ship, even though the ship has in fact been stranded on some kind of reef for about 7 years and none of the apes have noticed it yet. -Drahnier on OD moderation.
Imperialarc
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 03:48 PM EDT (US)     2 / 11       
hrm, I had always thought you could build TCs anywhere but getting settlements just add a new strategy and a bonus. If you don't get settlements then your opponent will overpower you.
Kong_KK
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 04:55 PM EDT (US)     3 / 11       
What are settlements going to actually look like? It's been said that they are neutral towns or something and you take over when you build your town center over them. So does this mean that there is a primitive tc with some houses around it? Will there be neutral villagers walking around?
WhoAskedU
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 06:13 PM EDT (US)     4 / 11       
no, a settlement is just a primative looking TC, no buildings, no houses.

At my signal unleash HELL.
God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!
•••winner of "2002 AoM Forum's Coolest Name Award"•••
•••••••Another Fabulous Post by WhoAskedU!!•••••••
People just complain about other people's Signatures because
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
Cyclops
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 06:17 PM EDT (US)     5 / 11       
Theres not very much info on the settlements biz, i hope some ES member will pop in and answer.

Whoever reads what I said above should disregard whatever I said, because I probably don't know what im talking about.
Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 06:49 PM EDT (US)     6 / 11       
There are a few points on settlements that I would like to comment on. I'll try my best to explain them, so hopefully they will help in some way or another if an ES designer reads it.

The Topic: Town center built only on settlements

According to ES, one of the reasons why they're toying around with this idea is because they want to prevent the cockroaching problem. (Cockroaching is when a player is down to his last villager; he runs to a corner of a map; walls up and multiply again, dragging it much longer, although obviously the game is pretty much over.)

Comments:

Although this idea is to exterminate the roaching problem, it also seems to bring up a few issues of its own. One major concern of many players, including myself, is the lack of freedom when expanding.

RF_Gandalf spoke for many players when he said, “The idea of only being able to build TCs on settlements seems confining - why shouldn't I be able to build where I want?

I would like to add to this: .since the settlements will be located randomly on the map, players will be forced to built on these randomized locations. This takes away a big element in strategic decision makings. (Some players want to build TCs behind forest, some like to build TCs in the open that is near gold so they can mine and farm, and while others like to build TCs in their allies' town so they can create their villagers and help their allies, as opposed to walk the villagers from town to town.)
.

SUGGESTIONS and IDEAS: .TCs not built on settlements will be very slow to build, IN.efficient, and *extremely weak* (low hp; can't shoot arrows!)

As this idea suggests, simply by making TCs that are not built on settlements be extremely weak, slow to build, and can't shoot arrows, it will *effectively* do-away the roaching problem, while at the same time still retain freedom of decision makings for players when they're expanding and booming.

.

[This message has been edited by Alexandergreat3 (edited 04-04-2002 @ 07:09 PM).]

CC_Straight_Og
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 06:54 PM EDT (US)     7 / 11       
Who cares if you can't build TCs next to resources?

In AoM we'll finally see resource drop sites besides TCs. You could always put a tower up for defense, too. But better yet, use troops and not buildings to protect you econ.

thewesson
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 07:53 PM EDT (US)     8 / 11       

I really like the idea of being able to raise your pop cap.

Settlements will provide another different kind of strategic resource to fight over.

It's an artificial and slightly weird solution to the problem of over-booming, however. (That doesn't mean I don't like it; it still might make better gameplay - it adds a feature to the landscape, which is always welcome.)

Alternative solutions:

* Make TC's very expensive. Perhaps all 'generative' buildings (that create units) should be quite expensive. This would reduce flushing, slow expansion, and make the loss of a building quite a blow. (Right now, a barracks costs about as much as 3 infantrymen - that seems a little cheap, honestly - almost not worth defending, cheap enough to build even in very risky areas, almost not worth the time it takes it destroy it.)

With generative buildings more expensive, you'd get a game that was more oriented to killing buildings than it is now - right now, the most important thing is to be able to kill the other guy's peasants or otherwise stop resource gathering.

I don't know whether that would be a better game or not. Might be a slower start but a more interesting fight.

Something along the same lines: make certain buildings more expensive by requiring them to be garrisoned (with the training staff and optionally more military units) before they can be used.

Then if the 'staff' and the garrison is killed off defending the building, the attacker can take over the building by staffing it himself. That would certainly make forward building more iffy!

A town center might require a 'governor' to staff it, and only a governer could train more governers. Likewise, a barracks might require a sergeant to staff it, and only a sergeant (or a governor) could train more sergeants.

Siege weapons or attacking the building H2H would damage a building enough to allow attackers to enter the building and fight the defenders.

Both these changes might result in a more clearly defined territory, rather than buildings being scattered hither and yon - the expense would keep down building count, and the vulnerability of buildings to takeover would keep buildings together.

* Allow TC's to be built anywhere that was appropriate. 'Appropriate' might mean a large open area that was flat and close to fresh water. Enclosed areas (in the woods) would have to be cleared. Areas that were not close enough to fresh water, settlers would have to build a well (using time and stone) first. This reduces TC expansion a lot, depending of course on the map type.

Just some ideas!

Matt thewesson

Alexandergreat3
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 08:15 PM EDT (US)     9 / 11       

Quoted from thewesson:

It's an artificial and slightly weird solution to the problem of over-booming, however

Actually, over-booming is not the problem ES is trying to solve; it's the cockroaching that is the problem. Those are two different things .

Booming is when a player builds up, expands, and makes lots of villagers.

On the other hand, Cockroaching means that when you've killed your enemy to the last villager, he runs to a corner; builds another TC; multiplies again; you destroy that nest of his to the last villager; again, he runs away and pop up yet another nest, and "cockroach up" again .

Two different things.

.

[This message has been edited by Alexandergreat3 (edited 04-04-2002 @ 08:16 PM).]

GoldenShadow
Mortal
posted 04 April 2002 09:36 PM EDT (US)     10 / 11       
The name Town CENTER itself means you shouldn't have more than one! they are the center of your town. Each settlement is in essense like a new town or colony away from your original town.
TheShadowDawn
Mortal
posted 05 April 2002 03:10 AM EDT (US)     11 / 11       
Some of you may want to check out a similar debate on settlements over at MFO. Interesting bar the Barbara Streisand comments...

TheShædøwDåwn
If you're like me, then it's possible you're a clone generated from my stolen DNA. I suggest you turn yourself in for destruction immediately.

[This message has been edited by TheShadowDawn (edited 04-05-2002 @ 03:30 AM).]

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames