Conquest Forums – Simultaneous Turn-Based Strategy Game

[Mortimer]

Just had a game with an AI where I forgot a whole lot of things :P

Anyways, the thing that made me finally give up was when I abandoned a city and the AI took it and got a bomber that turn. What, really? I left the city behind and didn't scrap everything?

After talking with Binary, I think I understand production: Cities are always keeping track of their production, and combat discards any units that would be produced that turn, but production still builds. If an enemy takes a city, they won't get anything that turn but a bomber that was two turns away will be theirs (combat on turn 1, bomber produced on turn 2).

Why not have combat delay production (it takes from your total production, but it doesn't progress any of the production meters for the city), and on any change of hands the city's production gets completely reset? So whenever the city is abandoned or captured, the former owner took care to destroy all current production. It makes sense from a strategic standpoint.

I'm not sure what balance implications this would have. Are people good enough to track city production, and keep track of when enemies are getting bombers? If not, then while it would make a difference in play, I don't think it would be a noticeable one. And it would eliminate the frustrating situation of giving a bomber to the enemy.

For team games, if you trade the city to an ally you'd leave the production as-is.

[Statham]

I don't know exactly but I think you are mixing two things up. Considering what you said here:

Why not have combat delay production [...]

If you abandon a city while the enemy is capturing it in the same turn, there is no combat happening. Therefore the production queue doesn't stop. Though I don't think that the production algorithm behaves like you described (with the non-delayed overall production but only delayed outcome). The wiki entry indicates the same:

It's good to know, that all production points a city would receive are lost, if either a battle took place or a nuclear missile landed.

I had some discussion with Binary about this. Wasting one tank to kill at least one trooper but delaying the production of the city one turn while your other units are approaching seems to be sometimes brilliant. If you are right, then this wouldn't make sense anymore.

So whenever the city is abandoned or captured, the former owner took care to destroy all current production. It makes sense from a strategic standpoint.

One week ago I suggested the same solution to this game mechanic, after I suffered such bad situation twice. But void came up with a logical explanation that the enemy usually takes the goods into his charge and doesn't waste it. Well, you can argue about this point but I think that's a good way to let the unit gain running although you might do some tactical operations (abandon cause you don't want to lose your units and reinforcements are incoming).

Otherwise I'm still in the opinion that there have to be a production info when you gain your unit (with your actual production value) or at least how far the production of your city is (trooper: 74 %, tank: 31 %, bomber: 6 %). Last time the discussion ended by "you need to count and estimate - good commanders do that" but I think with game mechanics like handicaps this doesn't work properly.

[Mortimer]

I don't know exactly but I think you are mixing two things up. Considering what you said here:

Why not have combat delay production [...]

If you abandon a city while the enemy is capturing it in the same turn, there is no combat happening. Therefore the production queue doesn't stop. Though I don't think that the production algorithm behaves like you described (with the non-delayed overall production but only delayed outcome). The wiki entry indicates the same:

It's good to know, that all production points a city would receive are lost, if either a battle took place or a nuclear missile landed.

I had some discussion with Binary about this. Wasting one tank to kill at least one trooper but delaying the production of the city one turn while your other units are approaching seems to be sometimes brilliant. If you are right, then this wouldn't make sense anymore.

So it does just pause production? I was under the impression that any units that would've been produced on that turn were completely lost. If it just pauses, that's exactly how I thought it should be!

So whenever the city is abandoned or captured, the former owner took care to destroy all current production. It makes sense from a strategic standpoint.

One week ago I suggested the same solution to this game mechanic, after I suffered such bad situation twice. But void came up with a logical explanation that the enemy usually takes the goods into his charge and doesn't waste it. Well, you can argue about this point but I think that's a good way to let the unit gain running although you might do some tactical operations (abandon cause you don't want to lose your units and reinforcements are incoming).

Otherwise I'm still in the opinion that there have to be a production info when you gain your unit (with your actual production value) or at least how far the production of your city is (trooper: 74 %, tank: 31 %, bomber: 6 %). Last time the discussion ended by "you need to count and estimate - good commanders do that" but I think with game mechanics like handicaps this doesn't work properly.

But the enemy should never -get- the goods into his charge. I order my troops to reduce them to scrap metal when I leave! Or, in the event of a nuclear strike, odds are the factories themselves were damaged enough to destroy all previous production.

I'd love to hear his explanation though, maybe it'd put things into perspective.

[Statham]

But the enemy should never -get- the goods into his charge. I order my troops to reduce them to scrap metal when I leave!

On the one hand it sounds logical that you trash your production when you leave so the opponent won't get any benefits. On the other hand any kind of tactical retreat will be discouraged. You won't move out of a city if you are not absolutely sure the opponent attacks in the next round, because you simply wreck your production.

Hmm, maybe a combination of both versions would add a new depth into the mechanics of the game. E.g. you get the choice to destroy or leave the production queue when you abandon a city. But this means that a production info is mandatory.

[Mortimer]

Maybe a simple change to affect perception would solve the entire issue: If a city changes hands without combat, its production is halted for a turn.

That way you don't see another player receive your bomber the turn you abandoned it simply because you didn't think to leave a unit sitting in it.

[Bianary]

I had some discussion with Binary about this. Wasting one tank to kill at least one trooper but delaying the production of the city one turn while your other units are approaching seems to be sometimes brilliant. If you are right, then this wouldn't make sense anymore.

I actually had been the one that mixed him up, and there must have been some miscommunication between us in that conversation because I wasn't talking of using up a tank to kill a trooper to delay production - I thought it actually destroyed incoming units, based on what was apparently a misunderstanding from past conversations I'd had with people. So I was wrong, and with that I also think the only time delaying production is going to be worthwhile is if you're trading at least equal power for it.

If it had been the other way it would have been a brilliant idea, but with only a slight hiccup in receiving units it's not really so great.

This would have been nice to have had straight, it rather has messed up my strategy planning.