Re: Battle Objectives

From: outis02 <uly_at_...>
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:52:46 -0000

I rarely use it, but part of the reason I don't use it that: A. the likelihood of actually destroying fortification is so low, even with overwhelming force and huge victory. B. even after you succeed, it does not give a visible advantage in the future.

In all, I think battles in general seem too abstract and too random to bother having this kind of objectives.

> > I'm also seriously debating removing "Seize their land," because it works less well. I know some players like it, but KoDP was not designed to be a "conquer the map" type of game, and succeeding with this objective more than once or twice can get wonky.
>
> If you remove it, then are you also going to drive players to always
> take the largest possible tula, since the territory cannot be lost and
> no more can be gained? (In my (stickpicker!) experience, bigger tula
> = more land for economics = more food/cattle/goods = more capability
> to deal with events.)
>
>
> --
> James Sterrett
> james.sterrett_at_...
>

Exactly as JS points out. I rarely try to seize land, but not only is it necessary due to game balancing, it is also important, IMO, to let players who like to conquer conquer. I remember seeing someone conquering almost all of DP. True, it's not what the game is about, but if you take away this option the gameplay will seem much more limiting. I think most players will quickly realize that there's no advantage in having a huge tula.

KoDP is "supposed" to be played a certain way, but if you take away the alternatives, the player will feel much less freedom, even if they never use the alternatives.

Powered by hypermail