StevenRLynchAbundanceThatIAM

Please Fix! AI player can autoraze cities after capture, whereas we have to wait five turns.

▼

Please Fix! AI player can autoraze cities after capture, whereas we have to wait five turns.

from Elemental Forums

We are not allowed to raze captured cities for 5 turns.  But the AI players (not monsters or denizens, but actual players) can autoraze cities immediately on capture.  I've lost three towns in about 30 turns in a big empire because they raze immediately (and I couldn't teleport there because it was ex-wildlands and that is consider "occupied" by enemy).  They should follow the same rules with razing as human players - if they want to raze it, wait five turns.

80,451 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting GFireflyE, reply 25


Quoting n0fo, reply 18


IMO it should take 1 turn to raze per level of the city, makes sense to very quickly burn down newly formed cities while taking much longer for established ones.


This is an interesting idea.

 

Another idea: When you choose to Raze, the raze happens dynamically to the equation 2xlvl = raze time limit where each turn that goes by reduces the population by current - current*currentlevel/2. (equation may be off). point is that the final turn should result in reducing the population to zero, thus concluding the complete destruction of the city.

 

Yeah going by population would be excellent too, that's how civ handles it IIRC and it works pretty damn well.

Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

Bring back the MOM rules with the two options. Either you raze it when you get it or you can't raze it afterwards or you can raze it at any time any point in the game. MOM rules rule. ;)

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

I'd just like the FE rule to apply properly thanks.  If I wanted MOM rules i'd play MOM.

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting abob101, reply 28
I'd just like the FE rule to apply properly thanks.  If I wanted MOM rules i'd play MOM.

Sorry, but this game is suppose to be the SPIRITUAL successor to MOM so if it's going to make that claim then it needs to be A LOT LIKE MOM! ;) So let it be written so let it be done. :_)

Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting OliverFA_306, reply 19



Quoting abob101,
reply 15
I don't get this thing where lately there's a few guys suggesting that reloading a game is somehow cheating...??  Who the heck are they cheating by reloading?  If someone wants to reload a game for whatever reason then that's their call... no-one is playing their game but them.  It's a rather derogatory term that I don't personally think is necessary.


Cheating in the Solitaire is still cheating

However, the temptation is strong and I admit that despite I am quite good at resisting it sometimes (very few times) I find excuses to convince myself is not cheating . I remember a Warhammer 40K PC game (I think it was called "Chaos Gate") that had a difficulty level called "Heroic" and was described like this "You can only have one slot used for that game, and any time that one of your units is killed the game gets saved automatically". I think that option would be cool to be implemented. 

I love that idea about only 1 save slot and if one of your units or characters gets killed the game instantly saves. That's perfect idea. Frogboy please implement that into this game. Then reloaders who cheat will no longer be able to cheat easily. Plus it is true cheating in solitaire is still cheating even if it is yourself and the cards.

Visions of unplugging ones computer when a character dies comes to mind already. lol The things players will do not to lose or have to start over. I remember in Everquest players disconnecting if they were in a situation that they were going to die. So SOE to fix that even though they unplugged their computers made their character still stay ingame for 5 minutes. laughed my arse off at the way SOE fixed them. lool