next »

Since Darvin has made it clear that buildings aren't going to be made of paper, I figure we ought to make it so that you have numerous ways to defeat your opponent. Rather than just destroy every thing he has, there  would be a multiplicity of ways to weaken or ultimately defeat your opponent.

An example I posted in the "Buildings and Harassment" topic was that certain successes would decrease the morale of troops or increase it. If you slay 1000 points  of enemy troops, but incur only 500 points of losses, than your morale would rise and your forces would fight better and disband less easily.

The obvious problem with this is the fact that it creates a slippery slope. Now, your opponent must work harder to beat a smaller number of enemies. To counteract this, players have a variety of morale-boosters at their disposal. For instance, if you hire a commander of high level, he would raise morale.

Thoughts?

I think a player should be defeated if all his "citadels" are destroyed or captured

I do think we should have multiple victory conditions.

I'd like to expand the "all citadels destroyed or captured" objective a bit to: after all your citadels are destroyed or captured, you will have 3 minutes with which to build or capture a new citadel or be defeated.

Another condition I'm thinking of is map control.  Every building would be assigned a certain "control value".  Each player would, correspondingly, have a certain percantage of the map's total control value.  If you control a significant (say, 80%) of the map's total control value for a certain amount of time (maybe 5 minutes), you'd win.

As for the map control idea, I think it might be easier if the map was organized into territories and building buildings increases the control of the territory.

The problem I see is that I can't see a territory containing more than two bases, hence it would be practically impossible to control a territory without having wiped the enemy out of it anyways.

Easy: Most production buildings can only be constructed in your base. Weak, easily destroyed structures (farms) and defensive garrisons would be placed in outlying territories.

That doesn't change the problem, that you don't "own" the territory until all the enemy's assets in it are destroyed.  Hence, the whole idea of territory control is pointless anyway, since you've already defeated the enemy in all practical sense by the time you control all the territories!

that depends on how big you make the territories

or we could put outposts around the map, that need to be captured to win. we would have to design this so that a player can't cavalry-rush to all of them and win

I still don't think that that the "territory" idea is really necessary; just treat the map as one big territory, and when you control the majority of it, you win.  Outposts may be redundant seeing as there are already resource nodes.

in that case the resource nodes will perform that function.