New victories

[Islar]

Hi

I have played some multiplayer games and it is Always the same. Everyone will make as fast as possible his settlement and weapons to rush the enemy and win the game. Sometimes the enemy has that big army that you automatically lose.

So i thought why can't you win in another way. Like to have a certain amounts of goods in your warehouse to win the game. This will slow down the weapon industry and higher the buildings (for example you will need 100 corn to win, the farms). And you will only need soldiers if someone almost win to attack one of is farm to slow it down.

I though by this kind of game you are not allowed to attack the important buildings of the enemy so you can only win if you have the certain amount of goods.

what do you think of this idea or is this an old idea that already is told?

[Ben]

This has been accepted before. Now it's just a matter of how it is going to be implemented.

I thought by this kind of game you are not allowed to attack the important buildings of the enemy so you can only win if you have the certain amount of goods.

It's a good thought, but it won't work. If I destroy my enemy's economy (kill all his serfs, for example), he isn't going to beat me anyway.

This is why I say that it is a question of how it is going to be implemented. My guess is that the normal win conditions will need to remain; just like the "standard" option in AoK also supports victory via conquest, in addition to collecting relics or building wonders.

[Krom]

This can be made in dynamic scripts. Let mapmakers make it and players play it

[Islar]

I am glad to hear this. Also i have what new suggestions to add. You can see the goods in a score list from every player. But this appear after piece time. because if you know you have much less goods than another player you just going to make weapons again.

Also when you play it in multiplayer, is it better to count the goods from one team or one player of the team must have the certain goods to win for the team? I think the first one is better because if you choose the second one you can let one teammate make the goods an the other ones let make the weapons. And that was the whole idea about. to make less weapons and more (economic) buildings.

I hope you like those ideas.

[Siegfried]

Do you have an idea how and especially where on the screen you could display this? It sounds like a lot of information that needs a lot of space.

[Islar]

Do you have an idea how and especially where on the screen you could display this? It sounds like a lot of information that needs a lot of space.

i thought every player one. you only see the points. not all the goods. that would be a choas on the screen.
maybe like this
player1 - 200 points
player2 - 198 points
player3 - 150 points
player4 - 233 points
player5 - 53 points
ect.

An example how i game would be.

You choose a map and the condition of victory. you'll need for example 200 corn, 200 wood and 500 bread. When you start building and make this goods you will see the points after peacetime. for example player1 has 150 corn, 50 wood and 350 bread. he has at the moment 550 points. other players don't know what he excally has because they only see the points. but what they know is that you will need 900 points to win the game. if someone has 700 bread he will not get 700 points because he only need 500 bread. if it would be a game with allies it would be 200 corn+200 wood+500 bread*total players of one team. if it would 2v2 every team will need 1800 points to win.