Skip to Content

Action Paralysis

6 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

I

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Action Paralysis

In my game for the contest I had a similar concern (players not interacting and just gathering their strength), and have solved it the way other games seem to: make it more advantageous to interact earlier. In my game there are certain points and opportunities you can only achieve in the first stage of the game (broken into 3 or 4 stages), and if you don

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Action Paralysis

Similar to what FastLearner mentions, I would think that a resource given to the winner of a battle (no matter the size of the forces) would encourage earlier/smaller clashes -- especially, if that resource was only given to the winners of the first x number of battles.

Another option, might be some kind of a "magic football" idea, where players need to capture and control a specific object or geographical area. Each turn, the player in control of the object gets extra resources. This might make it worthwhile for other players to try to take it away as early as possible.

-Bryk

Anonymous
Action Paralysis

Particularly in polite company players are often hesitant to commence hostilities;

one way might be start with forces at the holding capacities in the starting territories, with optimal or fixed compositions, which forces the battle by assuming the

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Action Paralysis

One of the more interesting incentive programs I

Ken
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Action Paralysis

I like everything that hs been said so far. I agree 100%

I

Anonymous
Action Paralysis

My submission for the contest will be a wargame of sorts, and the problem you mentioned is present so I dealt with it in a variety of ways. Many of them have previously been mentioned but one way I employed that was not mentioned was to set a size cap or limit on the army itself. So after a certain point in time it isn

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut