|
作者： Tundy, 10.12.2012 at 17:58
The problem with the lack of country bonus isn't really with balancing the total income of a country.
Do you make maps? It is a problem when making maps.
no is not.
whole country bonus if unrealistic
Unrealistic? How else would you account for the income of say, Poiters, France, in a regular game without a whole country bonus? Or Jabalpur, India? The whole country bonus, at least in my mind, represents the income of the cities that are not included as part of the map, therefore making them entirely realistic, so much so that it is unrealistic not to have it in place.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
作者： Tundy, 10.12.2012 at 17:58
The problem with the lack of country bonus isn't really with balancing the total income of a country.
Do you make maps? It is a problem when making maps.
no is not.
whole country bonus if unrealistic
Unrealistic? How else would you account for the income of say, Poiters, France, in a regular game without a whole country bonus? Or Jabalpur, India? The whole country bonus, at least in my mind, represents the income of the cities that are not included as part of the map, therefore making them entirely realistic, so much so that it is unrealistic not to have it in place.
Never looked at it that way! I now 100% support this.
----
The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
Unrealistic? How else would you account for the income of say, Poiters, France, in a regular game without a whole country bonus? Or Jabalpur, India? The whole country bonus, at least in my mind, represents the income of the cities that are not included as part of the map, therefore making them entirely realistic, so much so that it is unrealistic not to have it in place.
How about you properly scale income using spreadsheets instead of using multiplier?
When you take a country, you take the income from its cities... nowhere else.
You are trying to say that this land in total makes X money where X-City income is the bonus.
Sad news is that rich cities mean a rich area and subsequent large bonus and vice versa... which makes the balance even worse.
You could just divide up the "unaccounted" income to the number of cities by population proportions for example.
Better still, the current model is fine... Amok is introducing 10% bonus model to appease you guys. Stop moaning....
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
Didn't see that, Thanks Amok!
The problem with the lack of country bonus isn't really with balancing the total income of a country.
Do you make maps? It is a problem when making maps.
I have, and it isn't.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
Unrealistic? How else would you account for the income of say, Poiters, France, in a regular game without a whole country bonus? Or Jabalpur, India? The whole country bonus, at least in my mind, represents the income of the cities that are not included as part of the map, therefore making them entirely realistic, so much so that it is unrealistic not to have it in place.
How about you properly scale income using spreadsheets instead of using multiplier?
When you take a country, you take the income from its cities... nowhere else.
You are trying to say that this land in total makes X money where X-City income is the bonus.
Sad news is that rich cities mean a rich area and subsequent large bonus and vice versa... which makes the balance even worse.
You could just divide up the "unaccounted" income to the number of cities by population proportions for example.
Better still, the current model is fine... Amok is introducing 10% bonus model to appease you guys. Stop moaning....
So you're saying that in real life, if you were to take over Germany, you'd just take over those 6 cities? What about Stuttgart? or Bremen? or Bonn? You just leave them? No, you'd get the income from them. But they aren't on the map, so the whole country bonus as a number value than as a percentage would account for that income. As a percentage, the task of calculating what income you want to give the cities becomes even harder. I'd rather not have any bonus at all than a 10% bonus. I just really don't understand why the old system had to go, as it would have fit the custom map system perfectly.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
So you're saying that in real life, if you were to take over Germany, you'd just take over those 6 cities? What about Stuttgart? or Bremen? or Bonn? You just leave them? No, you'd get the income from them. But they aren't on the map, so the whole country bonus as a number value than as a percentage would account for that income. As a percentage, the task of calculating what income you want to give the cities becomes even harder. I'd rather not have any bonus at all than a 10% bonus. I just really don't understand why the old system had to go, as it would have fit the custom map system perfectly.
What you don't understand is that sometimes you have to sacrifice realism in favour of playability. And it's all over the place in atWar. It's much easier for players to simply expect that they'll get a fixed percent bonus if they capture the whole country instead of guessing it each time. As was mentioned above, you just need to compensate for that by increasing the income of the cities. Think of it as if the income from rural areas (or cities that are not in the game) simply flows to the nearest major city. It doesn't break the realism too much and is a good compromise.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
作者： Amok, 11.12.2012 at 14:04
So you're saying that in real life, if you were to take over Germany, you'd just take over those 6 cities? What about Stuttgart? or Bremen? or Bonn? You just leave them? No, you'd get the income from them. But they aren't on the map, so the whole country bonus as a number value than as a percentage would account for that income. As a percentage, the task of calculating what income you want to give the cities becomes even harder. I'd rather not have any bonus at all than a 10% bonus. I just really don't understand why the old system had to go, as it would have fit the custom map system perfectly.
What you don't understand is that sometimes you have to sacrifice realism in favour of playability. And it's all over the place in atWar. It's much easier for players to simply expect that they'll get a fixed percent bonus if they capture the whole country instead of guessing it each time. As was mentioned above, you just need to compensate for that by increasing the income of the cities. Think of it as if the income from rural areas (or cities that are not in the game) simply flows to the nearest major city. It doesn't break the realism too much and is a good compromise.
Can you at least explain why the system had to go in the first place? Because I don't see how population casualties referenced in the blog post ties into the system at all.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
Can you at least explain why the system had to go in the first place? Because I don't see how population casualties referenced in the blog post ties into the system at all.
I just did, read above. I would also like to remind you that the system that you're referring to had been gone for more than a year already (maybe even before you joined!).
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
作者： Amok, 11.12.2012 at 14:40
Can you at least explain why the system had to go in the first place? Because I don't see how population casualties referenced in the blog post ties into the system at all.
I just did, read above. I would also like to remind you that the system that you're referring to had been gone for more than a year already (maybe even before you joined!).
... REALLY? I swear I remember it being there as late as a few days before the switch to AtWar.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
Unrealistic? How else would you account for the income of say, Poiters, France, in a regular game without a whole country bonus? Or Jabalpur, India? The whole country bonus, at least in my mind, represents the income of the cities that are not included as part of the map, therefore making them entirely realistic, so much so that it is unrealistic not to have it in place.
How about you properly scale income using spreadsheets instead of using multiplier?
When you take a country, you take the income from its cities... nowhere else.
You are trying to say that this land in total makes X money where X-City income is the bonus.
Sad news is that rich cities mean a rich area and subsequent large bonus and vice versa... which makes the balance even worse.
You could just divide up the "unaccounted" income to the number of cities by population proportions for example.
Better still, the current model is fine... Amok is introducing 10% bonus model to appease you guys. Stop moaning....
So you're saying that in real life, if you were to take over Germany, you'd just take over those 6 cities? What about Stuttgart? or Bremen? or Bonn? You just leave them? No, you'd get the income from them. But they aren't on the map, so the whole country bonus as a number value than as a percentage would account for that income. As a percentage, the task of calculating what income you want to give the cities becomes even harder. I'd rather not have any bonus at all than a 10% bonus. I just really don't understand why the old system had to go, as it would have fit the custom map system perfectly.
no, thats bullshit. in real life you only have to take over the capital and they will surrender, dumbfuck.
and if they try to figh back, just take other key cities.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
作者： Tundy, 11.12.2012 at 17:26
no, thats bullshit. in real life you only have to take over the capital and they will surrender, dumbfuck.
and if they try to figh back, just take other key cities.
So then what happens when they surrender? You just take the capital and key cities and have the countryside ravaged by rebel insurgents? Is that what you'd do, Mr West Point General?
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
作者： Tundy, 11.12.2012 at 17:26
no, thats bullshit. in real life you only have to take over the capital and they will surrender, dumbfuck.
and if they try to figh back, just take other key cities.
So then what happens when they surrender? You just take the capital and key cities and have the countryside ravaged by rebel insurgents? Is that what you'd do, Mr West Point General?
easy, i kill them all.
any, country will surrender if you take key cities, and kill some civilians as a example.
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but frankly I think it'd just be easier if we type in our own whole country bonuses as we do with cities. I can see a few issues occurring with extra cities, and people complaining that income is a lot less without extra cities.
If there's a consistency problem, I suppose you guys could just use the 10% system with the default map, as I have no real problem with it. But more options for scenario creators allows for more flexibility and more interesting gameplay, I think, so there's no reason not to let them put whatever they want.
EDIT: I just realised the extra cities problem is present even with the above suggestion. Would there be a way to scale income down (or up) such that income from both cities and bonus is the same with and without extra cities?
----
"If in other sciences we are to arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."
-The Opus Major of Roger Bacon
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but frankly I think it'd just be easier if we type in our own whole country bonuses as we do with cities. I can see a few issues occurring with extra cities, and people complaining that income is a lot less without extra cities.
If there's a consistency problem, I suppose you guys could just use the 10% system with the default map, as I have no real problem with it. But more options for scenario creators allows for more flexibility and more interesting gameplay, I think, so there's no reason not to let them put whatever they want.
See, Im not alone, Amok
載入中...
載入中...
|
|
TOPIC LOCKED.
----
.10.
atWar Radio<3
play for fun, just for fun.
載入中...
載入中...
|
