On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 23:13:17 -0400, John McNabb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The alternate non-proposed way to change the upkeep costs would be to > eliminate gold from the upkeep. In order to recruit/recall a unit, > the player would have to have enough villages to support all his > current troops plus the new one. Gold would then be used only for the > recruitment and recalling of units. Of course, this will also require > re-balancing because not only will you end up with more gold then > previously, but some scenarios will become impossible because you > cannot recruit enough units quick enough to capture enough villages to > allow you to recruit the units you need to win in time. I would > suspect that this will tend towards players using only high level > units.
That was essentially the rule in Master of Monsters. If you were going to do something like this for Wesnoth, you would want more units supported by villages. In the long run villages can support 2 units, so perhaps you would use some constant plus twice the number of controlled villages. If the constant was high enough (12?) play would be somewhat close to what we have today. I don't like this though, as thw granularity isn't high enough and would break unit balancing. > The old method strikes a balance between these two methods of dealing > with upkeep in a way that I find provides for good gameplay and is not > too complicated. Can someone please give an explanation of the > gameplay reasons for making a change to it? I think the reason for the suggested change was to simplify the game, rather than to change how it plays. For noncampaigns the change in game play should be negligible. The issue is that for campaigns it significantly increases the amount of gold you get when finishing scenarios early. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
