в продолжении дискусси о том, что сложнее и интереснее стратегичнее - параллельные ходы или стандартный пошаг
KGB о параллельных ходах, в ответ на предложение одного юзера ввести их в Warlords:
тут ткже упоминается комбинаторная сложность (о чем я писал) - в стандартном пошаге (не синхронизированном) она на порядок наверное выше.Ultimately such a system becomes only a strategically complex as the orders allow for. The simpler the ordering system / options and stringing together of rules the simpler the game and less strategically viable it is. One of the reasons Warlords retains a very large complexity of strategic options is because there are only a few rules and players are then given freedom to combine them as they see fit (by moving units in any order, one at a time, casting spells as desired, buying production after finding gold in a ruin etc) using a very simple interface (mouse clicks basically). In a finite ordering system that you are proposing that flexibility is constrained by the orders that are possible and the interface is by necessity more complex than simple mouse clicks. Which one is better is largely in the eye of the beholder but I'd say the current Warlords games are like pencil&paper AD&D in that you don't need much to play beyond the rule books (basic game interface) and a good imagination. The order based system will be like RPG games like Baldurs Gate/Neverwinter Nights in that it will require writing a lot of code to handle and adjudicate with AI all the order possibilities and then the player is limited to what the game provides in terms of AI, order code just as those RPG games are.
и также о лимитирующем действии системы приказов на возможность того что игрок может делать с юнитом.
Ответить с цитированием
