Infrastructure

I think military infrastructure (ex: Factories, Barracks, Ports/Harbors, and Fortifications would add another level of strategy to the game.

Overall, no support, as it could make it too complicated. If it were to be implemented, it would have to be off by default, with an option to turn them on.

I think this is a great idea. Spend your money on factories to increase reinforcement numbers or boost horrible economies. It's a trade off because the enemy could just bomb you and you waste money but I like the idea. It would really help someone in India for example. Support!

I personally think that it's a really bad idea in general, but the option of paying a fee to make coastal, non-port cities into ports could be interesting. It'll have to be a game option turned off by default, of course.

Skrivet av 12gsh, 28.06.2015 at 20:02

Overall, no support, as it could make it too complicated. If it were to be implemented, it would have to be off by default, with an option to turn them on.

Such Negative feelings towards this wonderful idea. I myself have been thinking of this and fully support everything he said except for barracks. It would cause another step in this game. In fact, it would create game play similar but better than Civ 5. As you said so yourself, you struggled to get to r5, this would be a new era in AtWar where everyone now has virtually equal opportunity to excel. As for ports/harbors we practically already have those. Things like factories for uranium, furniture, and other worldly goods would be like our income. Fortifications our defense. Multiple sources of income and many different levels of strategy. Think of all the potential you are throwing away. Would you not want to be able to create an economical info structure for your country? As for factories, this would even out every countries potential for building armies. Support now!

----

Skrivet av Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 19:13

-snip-

My concern is that this sort of thing might ruin the brilliant simplicity of AtWar.

Skrivet av International, 08.07.2015 at 21:51

Skrivet av Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 19:13

-snip-

My concern is that this sort of thing might ruin the brilliant simplicity of AtWar.

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter - for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.

I must agree the simplicity is brilliant. Why not advance that simplicity into multiple levels upon levels of simplicity all put together into one comprehensive game?

----

Skrivet av Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 23:08

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter - for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.

I must agree the simplicity is brilliant. Why not advance that simplicity into multiple levels upon levels of simplicity all put together into one comprehensive game?

Because levels upon levels of simplicity is not simplicity.

Skrivet av International, 09.07.2015 at 06:00

Skrivet av Diedra, 08.07.2015 at 23:08

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter - for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.

I must agree the simplicity is brilliant. Why not advance that simplicity into multiple levels upon levels of simplicity all put together into one comprehensive game?

Because levels upon levels of simplicity is not simplicity.

Anything is simple if you make it simple. Simplicity put together makes advances but can be broken down into simplicity upon simplicity.

Support! For a option:This could spice the game up a lot. There could be Three buildings,
and only one could be built per city. When you or a enemy lose the city the building remains
so you would have to choice wisely which ones to build on. This design would keep the game
competitive for all the maps i can think of.

Barracks +4 troops per month for 300 cost
Fort +1 defense for all troops in a city for 1000 cost
Town +50 income for 200 cost

Skrivet av America., 12.07.2015 at 03:24

Support! For a option:This could spice the game up a lot. There could be Three buildings,
and only one could be built per city. When you or a enemy lose the city the building remains
so you would have to choice wisely which ones to build on. This design would keep the game
competitive for all the maps i can think of.

Barracks +4 troops per month for 300 cost
Fort +1 defense for all troops in a city for 1000 cost
Town +50 income for 200 cost

No. NO. Please just no.

This is just way, way too arbitrary.

If it is a option they could test something out.A option is a option. More options are good.You don't have to use it.