patch 2.08 is out - Page 19

Gandalf Parker · #**181** February 24th, 2004, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
That's a good idea. Because we only have two overworked devs, and they can't do everything at once.

Im not completely sure but in this case we might be talking about ONE overworked Dev. Johan K seems to be most of the programming. Kristoffer O seems to do most of the artwork and designing things like new nations and units. Johan O is a brother and helps out alot (such as playing goalee here blocking player shots at the devs). There is porbably some overlap but certain things we want look like they end up in one lap or the other.

Osium · #**182** February 26th, 2004, 06:03 AM

I would be in favor of an auto retreat, however I don't see why both sides have to retreat. The explaination given to satisfy those who want such an explaination so as not to ruin their immersion is simple. The attackers see they are not winning, or that victory is not possible, being far from friendly lands and supplies it makes sense they would retreat home to rethink/plan a new invasion. The defence being in its home land has no need to retreat, they stay put.

Gandalf Parker · #**183** February 26th, 2004, 03:50 PM

That would make sense to me, and I think matches most games also. If it looks like there will not be a win in X rounds then it is usually the attacker which pulls back.

There is also a scripting ability for "5 actions then retreat" which should remain a useful function. An automatic end of combat should always be a less desireable choice than a scripted retreat (which I usually think of as "if the battle goes this long then pull back" type of comand)

[ February 26, 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Peter Ebbesen · #**184** February 26th, 2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Osium:
I would be in favor of an auto retreat, however I don't see why both sides have to retreat. The explaination given to satisfy those who want such an explaination so as not to ruin their immersion is simple. The attackers see they are not winning, or that victory is not possible, being far from friendly lands and supplies it makes sense they would retreat home to rethink/plan a new invasion. The defence being in its home land has no need to retreat, they stay put.

Of course, it also happens when the attackers are winning, but the defenders (or at least one defender) have happened to hold out for 50 turns. In that case only a stupid attacker would retreat home to plan a new invasion rather than forcing the attack, as that would give the defender time to regroup.

johan osterman · #**185** February 26th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by SurvivalistMerc:
That's a good idea. Because we only have two overworked devs, and they can't do everything at once.

Im not completely sure but in this case we might be talking about ONE overworked Dev. Johan K seems to be most of the programming. Kristoffer O seems to do most of the artwork and designing things like new nations and units. Johan O is a brother and helps out alot (such as playing goalee here blocking player shots at the devs). There is porbably some overlap but certain things we want look like they end up in one lap or the other.

Thats basically true, any major coding related changes have to be made by JK. The kinds of changes people most often ask for are the kind of changes that usually ends up at JK's desk, and that no one else of us is capable of doing anything about.