Spring RTS Engine

For the record:

76% attitude bonus is not a reason to build wind?

? Tundra gets no altitude bonus from wind under default values (in fact, previously wind got locked out completely due to being just below the break-even threshold - i.e. wind is always at best equally cost-efficient as solar).

Unless I am mistaken, wind having a potential of 0 production is something totally lost in the current model?

It isn't: on most maps windmills built at the usual spots will have the minimum minimum (lol). Not that many maps have their minimum wind values set to <2 to begin with.

I see that most of the arguments for map specific wind with XTA come from the other differences such as different E, M or BT costs. CA does not have these differences so has to base the differences on reliability and raidability, CA also has overdrive making excessing EE occasionally due to random wind a good thing. By the sound of it CA's way of balancing wind vs solar is more fragile than XTA's way.

Google_Frog wrote:

pintle wrote:Just like a map covered in water, or seperated by steep slopes, or full of choke points would dictate which units you use, and which lab you build, indeed it would also dictate your expansion and aggression strategies...

Yes it would but there's still a lot more starting choice in factories than the clear cut build wind only or solar only.

Playing on a sea map cuts half of your starting choice in factories. Playing a low wind map cuts half of your starting choice in energy eco. I don't see a problem.

There's a big difference, it's not just a matter of saying a half of this or a half of that. Sea maps basically play differently but there are still a lot of starting choices, the interaction between sea and land can also be used on sea maps. Cutting out wind leaves the player with no economic choice which is much more severe.

KingRaptor wrote:For the record:

76% attitude bonus is not a reason to build wind?

? Tundra gets no altitude bonus from wind under default values

I don't understand. (Altitude bonus is independent from map wind values. It only depends on height map.)

SirMaverick wrote:

KingRaptor wrote:For the record:

76% attitude bonus is not a reason to build wind?

? Tundra gets no altitude bonus from wind under default values

I don't understand. (Altitude bonus is independent from map wind values. It only depends on height map.)

It increases minimum wind. It can't increase past max.

Google_Frog wrote:

Google_Frog wrote:Yes it would but there's still a lot more starting choice in factories than the clear cut build wind only or solar only.

Playing on a sea map cuts half of your starting choice in factories. Playing a low wind map cuts half of your starting choice in energy eco. I don't see a problem.

There's a big difference, it's not just a matter of saying a half of this or a half of that. Sea maps basically play differently but there are still a lot of starting choices, the interaction between sea and land can also be used on sea maps. Cutting out wind leaves the player with no economic choice which is much more severe.

The difference is that there are 8 factory start options, sea cuts it down to 4. You only have 2 small energy options, low wind: 1. We have so many redundant starting choices that map properties cannot cut start options down to 1. That's why the 50% comparison is in my opinion fair.

How about sea maps and economic choice: there are none, never. Why is it a problem to be sometimes limited on land? Why isn't it a problem that you are always limited at sea?

Google_Frog wrote:

SirMaverick wrote:

KingRaptor wrote:? Tundra gets no altitude bonus from wind under default values

I don't understand. (Altitude bonus is independent from map wind values. It only depends on height map.)

It increases minimum wind. It can't increase past max.

Oh, "default values" = map vales.
CA does not use map wind values. This poll is not about using exact map wind values for wind generators. It's about whether we use ca wind on low wind maps or not.

SirMaverick wrote:

Google_Frog wrote:

Playing on a sea map cuts half of your starting choice in factories. Playing a low wind map cuts half of your starting choice in energy eco. I don't see a problem.

There's a big difference, it's not just a matter of saying a half of this or a half of that. Sea maps basically play differently but there are still a lot of starting choices, the interaction between sea and land can also be used on sea maps. Cutting out wind leaves the player with no economic choice which is much more severe.

The difference is that there are 8 factory start options, sea cuts it down to 4. You only have 2 small energy options, low wind: 1. We have so many redundant starting choices that map properties cannot cut start options down to 1. That's why the 50% comparison is in my opinion fair.

How about sea maps and economic choice: there are none, never. Why is it a problem to be sometimes limited on land? Why isn't it a problem that you are always limited at sea?

Sea maps rarely start you in the middle of the sea. There's a little land which now pushes the choices up to 3 buildings; solar for safe and unraidable by sea, wind for unraidable by sea but raidable by other things and tidal for better than solar but more raidable and raidable by everything.

Why is the factory start options when people play sea maps even relevant? I'm not ridgidly defending the current sea situation, I would like more start options in sea too. Even then 8 -> 4 options as you've stated is much better than 2 -> none. No options is no options whatsoever, 4 options is still plenty of choice.

Anyway the land factory choices are only about 4 in a land 1v1. In sea there should at least be at least 3 or 4. I'm not saying the current sea works well. In teamgames you've got 10 land options and 4 sea options but optimality you'd have 1 or 2 more. You seem to be arguing from the standpoint that I think absolutely everything else in CA is the best it can be.

CarRepairer wrote:You want some trouble XTA? You're trouble makers making trouble and I'll bring you some trouble. YOU'RE GOING DOWN, XTA!! YOU EITHER BACK UP OR YOU HURT!!! STEP UP BECAUSE IT'S ON NOW!!!

I think the only xta player in this thread is pintle, not entirely sure where your going with this

I demand floating winds!

Yes, instead of tidals, remove tidal model.

Licho wrote:Yes, instead of tidals, remove tidal model.

NO AS WELL AS TIDALS!!11

and underwater solars

pintle wrote:I demand floating winds!

Make floating winds able to flip upside down and act as tidals in the event of a wind drop.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I think the only xta player in this thread is pintle, not entirely sure where your going with this

You're in the XTA playing clan (as noted by the X).

CarRepairer wrote:

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I think the only xta player in this thread is pintle, not entirely sure where your going with this

You're in the XTA playing clan (as noted by the X).

RoX are the _only_ clan to regularly play S44, EE, SWIW and Gundam

We are the one true Spring clan tyvm

pintle wrote:

CarRepairer wrote:

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:I think the only xta player in this thread is pintle, not entirely sure where your going with this

You're in the XTA playing clan (as noted by the X).

RoX are the _only_ clan to regularly play S44, EE, SWIW and Gundam

We are the one true Spring clan tyvm

Then change to RoS.

....or Xpringrts?

touche.