the game has potential to be great, but it is missing something. In my experience playing Greed corp, almost every match ends in the same way. Each player has about 2 tiles, and it is a constant drop ship war. both sides going back and for with carriers. Carriers need a distance limit, or an amount per game limit, maybe an anti air gun to prevent them from landing on certain tiles. and like the carriers those also could be limited. also possibly a device to keep a tile together, so that the harvesters cant destroy it, but the anti air gun cant be placed with it. Something else that strikes me as odd is that the defending side doesn't have the advantage when attacked by an equal number of troops.
Mistbound Boards
Part of the Mistbound community
-
Hiero Glyph
MemberYeah, I do agree that the game lacks a certain strategic value towards the end. The addition of tiles that could only be sunk via self-destructing a harvester would be nice. A cannon ammo type for anti-aircraft would be ideal as well as it could cost 30 and automatically destroy a single carrier that was trying to occupy the tile with the cannon or any adjacent tiles (but would not fire upon anything 2 or more tiles away) is needed as well.
Overall the game is fun but it needs more strategic choices. The carrier with 16 walkers just to place a harvester strategy is a bit lame. The only other thing that I have an issue with is how resources are collected. It would be nice if there was a bonus given for players that control the majority of the existing map.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hiero Glyph
MemberAnother issue is that armories and cannons cannot be destroyed by cannon fire. Ideally the cannon should be able to destroy an armory/cannon if left undefended (without any walkers on the same tile). So if an armory has at least one walker on the same tile and a cannon targets that tile, it would destroy the walker (up to 5 of them). If there are no walkers the cannon should destroy the armory/cannon and force the player to rebuild it (costing the player additional resources).
Posted 6 months ago # -
Jump Monkeys
MemberI have to disagree with you Heiro. The game strikes a great balance between land and resources. Players have the choice to harvest their tiles and gain resources (limiting the space they can occupy) or they can conserve some land but reduce their overall wealth. I think implementing a system of tile occupying income would be a poor thing to change, a person who chooses to harvest is going to give all the other players an advantage later on.
Cannons are too expensive for them to be destructable, besides any player who buys a cannon first would have an overwhelming advantage. If any other player builds a cannon or armory within range of an existing cannon and does not instantly protect them they've effectively wasted money.
One thing that should be changed before the release on PC however, one of the prologue story pieces during the Empire campaign has a misspelling. If any of the devs are interested I can try and find it again, I noticed it as I was playing through. One 'of' should be an 'off', small complaint I know, but definitely fixable :D. Congrats on the fantastic game!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hiero Glyph
MemberJump Monkeys wrote...
Cannons are too expensive for them to be destructable, besides any player who buys a cannon first would have an overwhelming advantage. If any other player builds a cannon or armory within range of an existing cannon and does not instantly protect them they've effectively wasted money.
__________One thing to note is that a cannon costs 25 to build and 20 per shell. That is a total cost of 45 to fire a single time and would only require the opposing player an armory and a single walker to protect it costing 12 total. I do not see how allowing a cannon to destroy an unprotected armory/cannon would be overpowered as that initial/sustained cost has to come from somewhere.
Keep in mind that it would only require a 2 resource investment to protect the armory/cannon versus a 20 resource investment by the opposing player to destroy it. If the player fires multiple shells at the same armory/cannon, the defensive costs will increase by 10 per each additional shell fired. Given that each player can stack up to 16 walkers and a cannon shell can only destroy 5 walkers per shot, it would require 4 shells to destroy all of the walkers and a 5th shell to destroy the armory/cannon. That is an investment of 25 for the cannon and 20*5 for the shells (125 total) versus a minimum of 10 for the armory and 2*16 for the walkers (42 total).
I think that the resource investments are perfectly fine if a player is willing to invest so much to destroy an armory. Also note that the occupied tile will not change possession so the player can always rebuild the armory/cannon so long as it is not occupied by another player. This suggestion would not change much about the game but would allow for the bombardment of unprotected or weakly covered armories and cannons. Also note that the cannon shell would still sink the tile by one so sustained fire would destroy the tile regardless. This would simply allow a player with a properly positioned cannon to do more than drop a tile by one and would make certain battles more than just carrier/harvester encounters.
On a side note is that I agree that the controlled tiles bonus might not be the correct approach but there should be some type of cost reduction for certain actions. So if a player has the largest army (minimum of 16 walkers) then they get a 50% discount on building armories (costs 5 instead of 10). If a player has the most cannons in play (not loaded; minimum of 3) then they get a 25% discount on shells (costs 15 instead of 20). Carriers should never be discounted however.
EDIT: I had more time to think about the unsinkable tile idea and the term cornerstone or keystone seems appropriate. I do not have time to explain my idea currently but needless to say it would be a zero resource tile that cannot be harvested or sunk unless certain conditions are met. I will explain the idea in detail later today.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Jump Monkeys
MemberAs you've put it like that it definitely sounds reasonable. However, if you had a bare single tile island within range of an already loaded cannon, you'd have to fly units there to keep it protected long enough to build the additional buildings. If you can't instantly protect a building with walkers, it would elongate the time it takes to expand and the game is too fast paced for that to be sensible.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Hiero Glyph
MemberI agree that there are situations where this strategy could be exploited but it is much more strategic than a carrier/harvester combo. Also note that in the case of a player already having a loaded cannon and another trying to build an armory within range the cost would be 2:1 for the player firing the cannon (20 for the shell versus 10 to build the armory). This cost difference would provide the player firing the cannon with a slight strategic advantage for an increased resource cost which seems 100% fair and balanced. So it costs the player more resources in order to prevent the player from constructing walkers near a given area or using an unprotected cannon to return fire.
One last thing to note is that you can only place cannons upon tiles that you control. As such you would have had at least one walker in that area at one time. If the tiles that provide access to this area are destroyed then the only way to populate those tiles with walkers would be to create an armory. If you instead leave the tiles unprotected and simply place a cannon there to attack offensively it would normally only be open to carriers taking over. This idea allows for players to control areas without having to directly occupy them using carriers. Sure, it would be expensive to keep bombarding a tile with shells but the cost would be much less than having to load up a carrier with walkers (the exception being if it requires more than 4 shells to sink).
In the example you provided, the opposing player would have the opportunity to remove the armory/cannon for an increased cost. Likewise the player trying to build could also protect the tile using a carrier loaded with walkers. The point is that the resource cost is increased if either player wants to maintain control and thus benefits the player with less resources in some way. Also note that some players may not respond to the armory within the turn required to build it and this is where strategies can develop.
The goal is to provide the established player with an advantage in return for an increased resource cost. The expanding player may actually have to use some strategy now instead of being able to build anywhere without fear of losing it to occupation or having the tile destroyed. Besides, the offensive player has a huge advantage already with carrier/harvester combos as the defending player cannot defend this in any possible way. What harm would come from providing a slight defensive advantage for cannons?
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.