spawn another one? i hope they sort it out in some creative way...
you lose?
assuming he can die, which i kinda concluded from the latest vlog|||In CT games you usually start with a unit that cause you to lose the game if you lose it.
I really hate it though. It's always the extremely annoying exception in games that are otherwise all about expandability.|||he becomes unconscious and you must rescue him!
You'll probably lose though. In less you also get a prince, queen, etc
Edit: Going with the he becomes unconscious your enemy can either leave him there or make a ransom for you to get your king back...
Say your king *dies* not to far away from your base, out of enemy territory where the enemy couldn't guard him indefinably, your enemy knows this, so he takes the king for ransom so if you want your unit back that you spent a decent amount of $ or research into, you can pay the ransom (Which would be determined by the amount of $/research you put into him) this way the enemy is rewarded for taking the unit out, and the game doesn't just end because that one unit *died*
Another scenario would be, you once again invested in your king, you sent him with your army to kill the enemys base, well you fail, the enemy now has your king in his base where he can guard him and you cannot get him back, now your enemy has an option, either keep him so you can't use him as an offensive unit, or get some resources out of him if need be.|||I like that idea. You can capture the king when his hitpoints go to zero. I think by killing any units within a certain radius of the king and reducing his health to 0, the king does not die but surrenders himself and is captured by the enemy. He may or may not be taken to the castle as a prison. The enemy can then charge a ransom for his retrieval or the player can attack the enemy (while en route to the castle or by besieging the castle) to get him back.
This makes a lot of historical sense, as during the medieval era kings and knights were rarely killed but captured for a ransom. After all, war was a "gentleman's sport" back then.
This actually reminds me of AoE 3 where your explorer could not die but fall unconscious and by revived by a nearby unit or ransomed for gold.|||My hope is that you win by destroying the enemy's castle. The king offers large advantages in combat via auras or other abilities, but his personal power is relatively weak, allowing him to be killed by a dedicated opponent. The king respawns after a certain amount of time (or you build/buy another one). While your king is dead, you can't upgrade your castle, so assassinating the opponent's king lets you win on the castle upgrade war.|||They could go the demigod route and make it so that when your king dies you're out of the game for 20 sec. or so, then he respawns. It's most likely the SupCom route though, where you lose if your king dies. CT said that they were going for the feel of SupCom in a medieval fantasy setting. Hopefully he meant SupCom 1, not 2
|||What about if you start with a king, queen and prince and if they all die you lose the game.|||He will explode with a 10 megaton blast.|||What if you start with a king and queen, and then after a while they get children, and if it's a prince, you don't loose if the king is killed, but if there comes a point where there is no heir to the throne, you lose. And you are not limited to one child, you can have several, but when making a kid your king is obviously busy so he cannot be in battle for a while. So you have to make a strategic choice.If you get a daughter she could be offered as a bride which could get you a decent sum of gold, among other things.
So if someone wants to take you down, they have to kill your entire family.|||Peacebreaker|||ghodan|||Read some medieval history. Sons and daughters were always being used to make alliances and gain wealth. Since standard fantasy is mostly based on the medieval era, including such a feature isn't so far-fetched. I don't agree with gender inequality, but it existed back then.|||Headless|||about heirs... i dunno, i mean it's still a strategygame that revolves around fighting... not a royalfamily-sim
and i don't think losing the game when losing the king would be very good, since... we have castles! atleast one castle needs to be blown up in every game!
i wonder if theres some cool king-gameplay... or if they stick with the ordinary hero-unit approach. the ransom system sounds kinda like the one for heroes in settlers:heritage of kings... except you vouldnt capture dudes, they only lay on the ground|||Headless|||Peacebreaker|||somehow i think there are reasons behind women not being warriors through history...
they are weaker you know that right... they are smaller... size and strenth are like much more important in battle than looks if you know what i mean...
ok that las thing was a flame ok i apoligize, but men are stronger and bigger and thus more suited for killing other people. This is true for most animals aswell
though sure, the odd woman in the army would be cool
you might say f*** realism, i want women to be treated equally!... and then thats fine i guess, but some might like realism or historical correctness. Sure its fantasy, but as someone said, they actually had preferred this game more if there were no magic and dragons, and those people might care?
And i dont think there are anything wrong with making the game feel medieval, afterall this fantasy is medieval-like. and so all medieval stuff fits, being gender-inequality or not. If you want to save the world from discrimnation against women a gpg fantasy rts isnt the place to start. i mean GTA series is played in todays world, start there... i can imagine so many good things coming out of them letting you play a female protagonist in gta
though all this making children business with the queen, thats just lame. doesnt belong at all imho
that said i really support equal rights for everyone :)|||Since the original topic is regarding a "Dead King", The Queen would make a good way to resurrect him. Thus if she can battle her way to his fallen spot ? A dead King should have an effect on morale over time so leaving him dead to long will be a negative.|||Headless|||Obviously_Not_Toot|||Eric|||I like the idea of kings not completely dying. But maybe there should be a timer on how long you can have a dead king before you lose. That way sure you can use him in fights but dont over-extend him because they may set up a fort to imprison him. And maybe after like 5 minutes if you haven't rescued your king from death you lose the game as your kingdom goes into chaos.|||Eric|||RastiMinato|||Headless
No comments:
Post a Comment