Re: [glob2-devel] gameplay ideas

[Andrew Sayers]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 02:22:06PM +0200, Stephane Magnenat wrote:
> > Explorers are much too powerful, or there are way too few ways to defend
> > against them! The defending player can only successfully defend against
> > level4 explorers if he has a bigger number of explorers before they start
> > attacking! Which is very very improbable...
> 
> Ok, so what about a magic tower against air units using papyrus?
> Anyone for drawing/coloring?
> 

Using papyrus seems a bit odd - are we suggesting that they're firing
paper aeroplanes?  Also, I'm getting quite fond of having a resource
type that's basically just a weed that needs to be controlled.

One property of aerial combat at the minute is that it's only part of
the latter stages of a game.  If we had a new type of building, it would
be able to shoot down enemy explorers even at the start of the game,
while explorers couldn't fight back.  That would make it harder and more
expensive to explore enemy territory - you could argue that's a good
thing, but personally I'd prefer to make players wait.

A related property of using level 3 towers would be that it would
encourage players to keep up with enemy school development, so as not to
get wiped out from the air later on.  On the one hand, that makes it
possible to make enemies play the game your way (like they have to if
you try and out-fruit them), on the other hand it makes "brute force and
ignorance" strategies (just build lots of warriors and keep attacking)
harder to maintain.

Before we get too carried away, what role is aerial combat supposed to
play in glob2?  Personally, I find it useful to be able to clear out
overgrown enemy buildings without having to dig through to them, but
using them as a major means of attack adds yet more complexity to the
game.  Speaking of complexity, NCT - would you mind having a look at
some of my questions in the (now poorly named) "Warrior Experience
Levels" thread, so I can do some more writing up?

        - Andrew