I'd like to point out that Local Deployments, Multi Attack and the luck/kill ratio settings make Warlight unbelievably complex already, but the game isn't melting. I don't see why more optional but complex features would change anything.

Here's a thought :
Mapmakers could cater their maps to be compatible with territory "terrains". New mapmakers need not worry.

You didn't shorten my post so much as convert it into Engrish, leaving out some major parts and making about half of the content in your summary confusing and lacking context. Thanks for the attempt, however.

Tell me the major parts I left and which parts are confusing. I write "succinter" English than you do, for an Engrishman. Also, I analysed my edits and your original, here is what it came up with.

9 schooling years to read mine, 1151 characters, 246 words, 16.4 words per sentence.

15 schooling years to read yours, 3510 characters, 745 words, 31 words per sentence.

In general, if your writing has more schooling years on it, that's bad.

Edited 8/22/2015 06:46:44

Thanks for getting back on topic Genghis.

I'd like to point out that Local Deployments,

LD doesn't make attack calculations particularly complex. In fact, the optimal strategy for adapting to LD (making sure you move your armies and having some particular approaches to expansion, aggression, and defense) is fairly consistent between different LD templates. LD isn't tough to do in your head- it scarcely adds any math to the equation.

Multi Attack

Likewise, MA just requires you to separate long-distance and long-term planning. With 0% SR (and even 0% WR), the calculations are still not complex enough to make MA unusable and most people can adapt pretty well to it.

and the luck/kill ratio settings make Warlight unbelievably complex already,

Luck above 16% is rarely used anymore- but fortunately implementing luck at 17% and above required no additional time on Fizzer's part. Luck 16% and below is incredibly easy to calculate with. Similarly, kill ratios just require you to plug in different variables- not come up with entirely different expressions or make any more calculations than you would be otherwise. Analyze Attack takes care of it for the most part, anyway.

These are not unbelievably commplex features to anyone who knows how to play. All of these are usable in a wide enough variety of templates to make up for the cost of implementation, imho.

but the game isn't melting.... I don't see why more optional but complex features would change anything.

My issue isn't with the game melting. With any feature, Fizzer has to invest time with implementation. This time cost isn't worthwhile if the feature is game-breaking enough to not be widely used- obviously, it's not going to affect games where it's not used, but that doesn't matter. It's about whether people actually use the feature enough to make implementing it worth Fizzer's time.

So I have two issues:

- This would likely be a huge time-investment on Fizzer's part (which of course has significant opportunity costs) because he would have to revise key game and map mechanics

- This wouldn't be usable in a large enough set of situations to make up for that time investment and the opportunity costs (i.e., what Fizzer could implement instead)

I'm going to ignore the off-topic stuff but I chuckled at this part:

15 schooling years to read yours

Weird, since I'm just about to start my 14th year of schooling in 9 days. Guess I shouldn't be able to read my own comments. (And yes, I know how reading levels work. This is facetious, in case you couldn't tell.)

Edited 8/22/2015 06:51:59

Weird, since I'm just about to start my 14th year of schooling in 9 days. Guess I shouldn't be able to read my own comments.

Would you expect it to be that precise? It's an average. There are dumb university graduates and insightful primary schoolers.

Well knyte, I'll point out i almost never use LD and Multi Attack. I've tried MA, but the issue is that there is no medium between lose everything 1 turn or slowly lose ground 1 territory by q territory. I want to see the careful maneuvering, the refueling so to speak.

As for local deployments, mostmaps i would use it for are too large ģ have too many bonuses. If you've ever seen a fee of my larger and more provoking scenarios,you'd know what i mean precisely.

We have come to this crossroads for about 2-3 years now : Should Fizzer work to monetize the game, but in the process might not get a lot of cash, or should he invest into a new groundbreaking feature, that might not get much playtime? The worst thing i can think of is that people ķ and especially the strategic players) keep playing the same schlocked out things, but refuse to bridge the gap between diversity and complexity & simplicity.

Looking back on it, i think this game i composed long back might be the thing many people would love to see.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/56027-birth-civilization-roleplaying-scenario

I'm up for new groundbreaking features. I just don't think this would be one.

Instead, I think it'd be best for Fizzer to allow people to create their own game mechanic extensions (no work on his part to create the mechanics themselves) so we can permanently open up the game to that sort of modification. That would be hella groundbreaking and allow us to just test suggestions like this one out.

Because I'd honestly want to try this one out- I'd find it interesting as a way to balance double borders (by, say, having a lower kill rate for something like the westernmost Antarctic territory in Strat ME). I just don't think that it's going to be big or widely used enough- it'll take a lot of effort to use it in a non-game breaking way- or worth Fizzer's time to implement because there's a backlog of like 500 ideas he's already not gonna get around to.

Edited 8/22/2015 14:37:55