PowerCrazy wrote:Many of those "reasons" are unqualified.
Do you mean unjustified? Unqualified in that context would mean without qualifications, as in "no buts", completely true without any problems. Unjustified means without supporting reasons / evidence / due cause.
Going back to Chess. [...] The only restriction on the player is the rules of each piece and the rules of the game. There is nothing artificial added in. The slot system to me would be akin to you can only move one of your bishops and must put it back in its original place before you can move the other one.
In FO we already have a set of rules defined, slots just seem like sometihng tacked on at the end, with little thought to it.
Were there a rule in chess about only having one bishop away from its start position at a time, then that would be a rule of the game as well. Why would that rule be so much more artificial than castling or en passant or promoting pawns, which also seem tacked on, to me? Such a rule would lead to tactics like blocking the out bishop from getting back in so that the other bishop can't move.
Why? How does that increase strategy?
I'm not sure what you mean by "increase strategy". Various strategies arise from the rules of the game. Depending on the exact nature of slots and other game systems and their interactions, different strategies will be possible, viable or not. I don't really think Extremepumpkin's reason was valid / supported... but I can't declare that it's definitely false, either.
Slots do nothing to decrease total building decisions, only make the decisions harder to make, and force the player to go back and revise his old decisions
I fail to see how it improves the UI. You have to ADD a place for the slots for each planet, rather than just taking those buildings that are built off of the build menu and putting a neat little icon on the planetary view.
I think the idea is that you only need a set amount of space on the planetary view for those icons now. Before, you could have any number. If you only have a set small space, you can add functionality to the icons, like scrapping or enabling much more easily than if you have to deal with a widely varying number, which probly necessitates a list or something, which is not condusive to varied functionality, I expect.
Comparing the majority of the items a War3 hero carries to buildings is misleading.
I think it's a valid comparison in some respects... At least in single player, your supply of items is sufficient to necessitate often chosing between keeping an item or replacing it with a new one. In multiplayer this isn't often the case, but only because the supply of items is reduced. What the items actually do (consumable or stat boost) isn't so relevant, imo.
there is a LOT more to your "empire" in War3 than just your hero. Also there is no limit to the number of actual buildings you can build in War3.
FO has ships, so there's a lot more to your empire than planets. Warcraft also does have limits on building... by money, time and to a small degree space, and indirectly through the food cap and the resulting number of workers you can support.
The cost (oppurtunity and otherwise) will be built in to the building, both in terms of the amount of time it takes to build the building, the amount of maintenance, and primarilly which focus you choose for the planet.
That's what I said. drek seems to prefer a semi-permanent consequence of the choice to build something instead of something else, at a given time.
Strategic depth is already attained by the focus choice the player makes, and certainly no planet will be best at everything (excpet maybe orion...).
As mentioned above, I'm not sure what you mean by strategy... could you explain?
Anyway, I'm not seeing why we need an additional restriction whose scope extends outside the current boundries we have set.
What's so special about "the current boundries" ? That they're current, or that what's been written is exactly the right amount of boundary and no more can be added without spoiling them? Why?
What if we set a hard limit to the number of techs you could research, or the total population of the empire, or the number of ships you could build? Surely you couldn't justify that could you?
Empire population limit or max # ships could be justified by saying you'd need to decide where to put them, lest you lose them. There'd be a greater risk to putting pop on the front lines, lest they got killed... but maybe there's a good planet there. Ships away from your main armada could be caught by the opposing armada, and destroyed easily when outnumbered. There is
a population limit in chess, if you think about it... and it's quite relevant to the strategies of the game.
Limiting the number of techs to research would certainly force the player to decide which ones to get...