Already have same "Sacrifice" (in RUS version it have name Kamikaze ) Code: <Card Id="68" Name="CARD68NAME" Desc="CARD68DESC" CardType="Weapon" Cost="5" Tag="0" PostAction="None"> <Action Type="Modification" Side="Self" TargetType="Mercenary" Value="-10"/> <Action Type="Modification" Side="Enemy" TargetType="Stronghold" Value="-12"/> </Card>
Interesting idea about Kami, but I don't think the name is fitting for that description. It makes more sense to lose mercs, as they will be the ones doing the kamikaze.
Ooo, If you could sync that data to the server I bet it would give you guy's a great idea of which cards need to be trimmed or toned down to balance the game
Bastille Stronghold -7 Perimeter +25 Make it a minimal cost card to compensate for the stronghold sacrifice. Cant tell you how many times i have had a 40+ stronghold with 0 perimeter...only to watch it fall away to the 20s and teens from garbage -4 and -5 perimeter/stronghold damage cards! At some point (especially when we get multiplayer) the perimeter is going to be vastly more important then it is.
Remember Turk, the enemy's gate is down. (Some reference to a good book.) Card ideas: Stand-By Perimeter +9 Enemy Perimeter +4 Cost 7 Composites Détente Both Strongholds -4 Both Mercenaries -3 Both Armory +1 0 Cost Revolution Stronghold -5 Barracks +1 Mercenaries +8 Cost 3 Weapons Also, I think Demolition might cost too much. 20 Composites to take off only 10 perimeter? I'd either up it to 13-14 or make it cost less.
Tactical Nuke If player stronghold <20 and merc count >40 then Cpu stronghold - 30 Player and cpu merc count and production set at 0 for 3 turns Out of desperation you lash out with your most dangerous weapon. You decimate your enemy. The fallout from the blast makes the land around both strongholds uninhabitable.
While I'm sure this is Stronghold 101, but I failed to catch it initially. As long as you can afford the resource cost to use the card, it doesn't even matter if you have a sufficient amount of one of your adversely affected resources. So, for example, if using a card would knock your wall down 5 units but it's already at 0, you can use this card with no real adverse effects.
Correct. IMO the negative aspects of a card on the player should be a condition for its use. IE Corrosion takes away 5 perimeter from both players. If you dont have 5 perimeter to sacrifice you shouldnt be able to play the card.
In a way it's also a tactical aspect though. You do have to play your cards in the right order and keep an eye on your resources rather than just blindly playing. It wouldn't be worth the cost all the time if you had to use it with the resources given.
Definitely clever BUT could the AI be programmed in such a way as to REALLY know which moves are worth undoing?
I think the actual question should be: What kind of moves are worth undoing for 28 resources? You can't undo a win/loss, that's for sure. The best I can think of is undoing Giant Building/AYBAB2U/Inversting in Victory. And there are better ways to use 28 resources than an undo. =\
Cool. This is always my concern in good strategy games. It's EASY to come up with some brilliant ideas but not all of them translate well to the limits of an AI.
