BGForums

I was thining about the facility carry over and map scale issue today.

I am curious if the" facilities dont carry over issue due to possible map scale changes in the next scenario" could be gotten around by instituting a new form of structure/facility.

Would it be possible to have a "conglomerate" facility that incorporates the abiltities of more than one facility type ?

This way when the hex scale changes due to moving to the next scenario in a campaign, any facilities that would be in a"space conflict" on the map due to the new hex scale,could be combined into one of these "conglomerate" facilties with its abilities defined as the combined abilities of all the facilities now in that hex .

This if possible ,seems like it would allow facilty carry over thru a given campaign.

Which would be a very good thing i think.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Very interesting, but to me sounds like more trouble than it'd be worth because off-hand I don't think it's the map problem, and it would only then be useful in crammed maps and showing it there would require some new UI, and even then there'd need to be some kind of balancing and limit to prevent 10 industries in a little, super-supplied corner and so on. Plenty of work there.

I disagree .

1) Why would you need a new UI ?All your doing is adding another facility type that players cant build.
This facility type would be created by the game when it draws the map for a scenario IF its the second or further step in a campaign(and needed).

2) I dont understand the "crammed map" statement either .

3) The statement on balancing is one i also dont get .What balancing ? and for what ?

4) the part about 10 facilites,might be an issue.Off hand i dont know the smallest map scale for hexs.
I "think the largest"is like 45 ?
But in the small hex scales you can only build many facilities every other hex.


I get the impression you thought i meant the "conglomerate" facilities to be something a player could build as such during gameplay.

But thats not at all what i mean.

What i proposed is a way to allow facilities built in one step of a campaign (say scenario one )to be able to be carried over into the next step of that same campaign (say scenario 2) at the end of scenario1/begining of scenario2.

This way all the work of building up facilites (which of course includes all the production) performed by the player at each step of a campaign, like you have to do now,would be cut back as you wouldnt have to repeat build those facilites each stop of the campaign anymore.

You could even go as far as to make this new "conglomerate" facility a new city on the next scenario in a campaign.

So that if the spacing and scale in scenario one of the campaign im playing has 3 facilities that would occupy some of the same space/hex in scenario 2 of that campaign, those facilites would be drawn as "industrial city (insert name here)" when the scenario preforms its carry over and map draw loading.
With this industrial city (insert name here) having the combined production of the facilities that would conflict with each other for the hex/space.
So if the 3 facilities were a military base, a powerplant and a farm- the "industrial city" would have the production capacity of the three facilites and therefore have a unit cap,a power output and a food output.


* mutliple facilities that would compete for space on a new map scale in a campaign if carried over--- could equal---a new facility known as "Conglomerate facilites"---which could be taken as far as to make them new cities on the map known as "industrial city (insert name here)"

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

These are very interesting ideas but they may not be the ideal way to solve the problem. If we did have this ability built into SR2010 it would have made certain maps easier to build because we could just carry over items. I wouldn't take too much brain power thinking about this one.

Not sure what you mean by the last line Legend.If it means the issue has already been solved in a different way by you guys,or that the next game by design wont have a carry over issue,than great.

But this is something i think really needs to be addressed for the next game IF it will still be an issue.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

Well... I mean that the next "engine" won't have this problem. I don't want to spill too much ... yet.

Excellent.Thats great to hear.

_________________
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM