Oilplatform

[SnotlinG]

We are currently discussing the oilplatform incomebuilding, and have 3 diffrent options.

1. Let it be as it is
2. Let it be as it is, but increase income a bit
3. Change the default guardian from light inf/djonk to Sea Serpent and increase the income quite a bit

What do you guys think?

[Moonknight]

I vote #3, Sea Serpent should definitely be the guardian!

[magian]

I actually didn't realize there were default guardians for the income sites. I would prefer there weren't. Let the map designers place whatever guard(s) they want manually.

[KGB]

Sea Serpent!

In fact HatchFactory and I were talking about this very thing in one of our games.

Speaking of sites, In DLR, sites could be razed/rebuilt and thus had to be protected. Right now it's hardly worth protecting your sites since if an opponent takes one they can't do anything other than temporarily occupy it. In many games I raid into enemy lands and capture sites only to have them recaptured the next turn since I can't/don't want to hold them and so they often get traded back and forth over and over again.

Maybe instead of razing a site directly, the income value could be decreased by (pillage % of capturing unit) each time it changes hands. Then a player could spend 3X the decreased value to 'repair' the site. So lets say a site has income 10. You capture it with a unit with 50% pillage unit and it's down to 5 (10-5 pillage) income. Next turn it's captured from you by a unit with 10% pillage and it's down to 4 (5-1 rounded up) income. You recapture with your 50% pillage unit and it's down to 2 (4-2) income. Now you want to repair the site to full use it would be 8 damage*3 repair cost = 24 gold to repair (which you make back in 3 turns).

KGB

[ams16]

I agree with magian. I think there shouldn't be automatic guards - just what the map designer puts there.

[KGB]

It's a pain to put guards on every site if you put say 20+ on a map.

I do agree that if the designer places a guard on a site it should be used. However if they don't, then a default guard should be in place.

KGB

[razurandal]

3.

[ezras]

designer can always add units on top of the default if they wish.

I vote for #3; but feel unless they are on the way to strategic targets not many ppl will try to capture them.

[KGB]

I vote for #3; but feel unless they are on the way to strategic targets not many ppl will try to capture them.

Entirely depends on the gold they give. For 10-12 gold I ignore them unless I had a lot of men to use. For 20+ gold I would capture them since many cities don't give 20 gold income so it's really a whole city worth of income.

KGB

[magian]

Having default guardians does not allow a map designer to have unguarded sites (which I would like to be able to do).

We can set the value of sites, so why not be able to tailor the defense to match?

Adding guardians manually really isn't very much work, and allows every map designer to make these sorts of decisions for themselves.