StormingKiwi
Posts: 63
Joined: 2/11/2021
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hanekem
Because War is expensive in men and materiel and also in other factors, with the civilian economy and well being suffering from it.
The longer a war goes on, the worse it could be
Admittedly, this is only true for a total war, as opposed to flash points or distant, low intensity, wars, so the war weariness should account for those factors.
But it is always going to suck, it's always going to imply restrictions and the like that the civilians aren't going to like, long term.
Yes that's the lore/rationale/fluff behind the mechanic, but what gameplay problem is it trying to solve?
In these games, war is often worth the investment. So why punish the player for being at war when other mechanics inherently reward such a playstyle? That's the point I'm making.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB
This is a very backward way of thinking and it is not even true. I generally stay away from wars in these kind of games and make allies to become strong rather then just conquer everything. War is not what Distant Worlds is to me at all... it is more an economic and logistical simulator in my opinion.
With that in mind then war should be quite detrimental to the economy so other empires or faction not in war probably will come out stronger as they stay out of it.
In fact... conducting wars are way to efficient in most strategy game than what they should be long term most of the time.
War weariness is a good simulation of internal political pressures to end wars that is more than just numbers and economy but also about peoples lives and wants. People in general are not interested in more territory, they are more concerned about their own well being and lives. Players are not really concerned about the well being of the "people" living in their empires so abstract game mechanics have to do it for them.
In my opinion fun is a pretty relative term... I like it when a game simulate other things than just economy and raw numbers as life, cultures and social struggles are about so much more. Conflict is not always about resources and territory either which is the only thing most players are interested in. Conquer territory and especially integrating them in games like these usually are way too easy... some cultures should be so different that it would be nearly impossible to do it without full genocide and total destruction of whatever resources you were after from the start.
In the modern world wars have become so destructive that we can't afford them in more than very limited ways anymore. In the past wars were not that destructive but today they are. So destructive in fact that they simply are not worth considering for economic gains anymore. In the future we should assume they would be even more destructive... this is just food for thought and not relevant to a computer game.
More power to you, but the point stands. If you had a rival in DW:U, the most effective way of dealing with that rival is to poke them with a sharp pointed stick, because there are few ways that a rival can be competitively dealt with. War is disproportionately more powerful than peace for reducing the influence and power of rivals and competitors in this game.
I'm not saying I spend the whole time at war, but given that the game is designed around conflict, it makes no sense to punish the player for engaging in those conflicts.
|
Printable Version
War Weariness - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread