Official KaM Remake Ideas topic

[GreatWhiteBear]

Can't you make a surrender button? That destroys all important buildings?

[pawel95]

Is there really no way, that the remakes can "see" that the enemy has pushed the button "EXIT" or push "Alt" + "F4" ?
If the remake sees, ok the player is going and he was not disconnected--> Than display out the message?!


Pawel95

[tigikamil]

I have an idea.
When you save game, the default name is the map name.
Maybe add to this map name current date => date.month.year?
Example: Lake Wololo 23.02.2012

[Lewin]

Most times when a player intentionally quits they send a message to the server saying they are disconnecting, that's why you get the message "Lewin has quit" for intentional disconnections and "Lewin lost connection" when the connection disappeared with no warning. However, sometimes the message to say the player is leaving does not get sent, because the game is being closed. So in some cases the message can be sent immediately and it gets through, other cases the game closes before the network is ready to send.
So most of the time, yes we know whether they intentionally quit or were disconnected, but that means the "you won" message would only display most times, sometimes we would think it's a disconnection and it would not be shown.
@Krom: Do you think the feature should be added given the information above?

@tigikamil: Adding the date would make all the save names really long and not fit in the drop box.... but you're right it would be good to show that somewhere.

[Krom]

@Lewin: If you say thats doable for the most of the cases - then it's good to add.

[Krom]

@tigikamil: Why do you need savegame timestamp exactly?

[pawel95]

Is it possible, that the castlesand news are away?
I have save it in my favorites, but if i open it, there is an error since yesterday afternoon:

http://code.google.com/p/castlesand/updates/list

[Lewin]

Is it possible, that the castlesand news are away?
I have save it in my favorites, but if i open it, there is an error since yesterday afternoon:

http://code.google.com/p/castlesand/updates/list

Looks like Google Code removed their "Updates" page. Just read the changes here:
http://code.google.com/p/castlesand/source/list

It's basically the same, the updates list just showed changes to issues as well as code changes.

[pawel95]

Ahh ok. Thanks!

[tigikamil]

@tigikamil: Why do you need savegame timestamp exactly?

To make order in replay list, and save new games on new slots (names) automaticly.

[Anacreor]

I had a little idea keeping in mind the competitive aspect of multiplayer.

I was wondering; Is it a good idea to add an (optional) WatchTower build-limit? (Depending on the maps)

I played against my brother via LAN yesterday, and he just spammed watchtowers all over his base.
My economy build was far superior, and even though I defeated his army and he was out of resources, it took me like 30 minutes to take his towers down with archers before I could destroy his inner city.

If you introduce a build limit, for example 12 towers for a large map, that most surely will enforce more tactical placement.
You will have to explore the map and find the narrow passages, and really take into account your surroundings and the layout of the map.
In my opinion, that would make for a more exciting game.

I believe it's just not that much fun when one places 45 towers all spread over his base.
When you win and the opponent is out of resources, it just makes me go like:
"ah well. he's done for, but even though I won, I really don't feel like spending 1 hour in taking down all the towers just so I can destroy his important buildings".

I you make this an option, with each map having a different watchtower maximum, IMO that will result in this:

Pro's:

- Enforces tactical placement/tactics become more relevant to winning a game
- It won't take an hour to finish off already defeated enemies

Con's:

- ??


What do you guys think about this idea?

[GreatWhiteBear]

discussed before, IMO it is a nope

[Anacreor]

discussed before, IMO it is a nope

Why? Want to explain perhaps?
Sorry for reposting then!

[GreatWhiteBear]

In my opinion, the best way to get rid of towers is to (re-)introduce siege equipment.

If someone wants to dig in, he should be able to without any problems other than the obvious lack of building space.

[Garnu_Thorn]

Based on several tries to conquer TSK mission 8 with legit play through, something has come upon my attention on that mission. A quarter of the time I make enough towers to fend off the initial waves, but after the enemy is held at bay I'm left with what, no stone? Seriously, of all of the two building resources, my stone goes in to my towers after the fight leaving me without enough to build a road to my stone cutter and it's building material requirement. I know I know, I should just tick off on each tower not to have stone delivered for a bit, but my serfs are already carting off the precious stone.

Maybe the map needs more starting stone. With the next release, I've heard towers miss less often, lessening wasted stone. And another thing about towers is: why do two or three towers throw their stone at one enemy unit when only one is necessary? I could hear it now amongst recruits, "This one's mine!" or "I'm out, he's yours!"