Replacing guns & ammo

I don’t think it’s so much that any warlord is going to be willingly parting with soldiers full stop, hence why current recruitment carries a cost. It’s the individuals who decide to leave regardless of what that warlord wished that we’re currently missing from the game.

Finding means of communication with one another has been a hallmark of human civilisation since time immemorial. People might not receive full information via official channels, but they’ll still find a way to pass on information to one another via unofficial channels, they always have done.

…And we’re back to my first point. We’re in a dark age where access to radios/mobile phones &/or satellite communication is limited to non-existent. So yes, news is eventually going too filter through, but it’s going to be much, much slower than we’re used to today.

To give an historical example, the Petrograd Revolution was violently put down in 1905, and it took another 12 years and a disastrous world war for the Petrograd Soviets to garner enough popular support to stage a second revolution and topple the Tsar - and that in an age of radio. It took a further 8 months for the Bolsheviks to get organised enough (and be sure enough of their support), to stage the coup that was the October Revolution. In an era where control of communication lies with those in power, it takes a very long time even for those who are supremely well organised to gather enough support to effect a change.

So there is no good reason why we should suddenly expect vast numbers of people to come flocking to our banner just because we’ve killed a few aliens.

It’s hardly the dark ages when people are flying about in personnel carriers and firing rocket launchers. And we’re not talking about organising and carrying out a full on revolution, we’re just talking about the possibility that more people might decide to switch causes.

We’re obviously going to disagree on this one, so let’s leave it here.
You believe that more people should be attracted to PP’s cause simply because they’re being effective in their sphere of influence. I don’t.
No point in arguing over it any more.
Let’s move on.

1 Like

Fair play.

1 Like

I think this is just one of those things that’s primarily about game balance. Game mechanics always come first, even if logic might make it seem unrealistic.

In the end, if they don’t want the player having access to that tech for the sake of balance then the player ain’t getting it, whatever the reason might be.

…Though in this case, the logic is flawed. Just because you have access to advanced tech doesn’t mean you can instantly reverse engineer it.

1 Like

Oh, I agree completely. I also think that even if a faction provided you with a fighter with initial equipment, they wouldn’t just constantly mail you with replacement items, heh.

I’ve just noticed how some people often bring up ‘realism’ or ‘logic’ when what they actually mean is, ‘I want this bit to be easier and/or quicker’. They forget that if the designers were slaves to realism in ways that make the game simpler, they’d then just have to increase the challenge some other way.

NO I don’t mean this!

I believe you :slight_smile:

However, whether it’s what you want or not, the end result is that the game is easier and then the devs will have to rebalance.

Example 1: ’We should be able to manufacture a weapon because a recruit had it or get the faction to supply more when needed.'

It makes the tech part of the game easier. So then the devs would have to rebalance by making the cost more expensive perhaps, or having recruits arrive with weaker weapons. Then people might say, ’It’s not logical, why does it cost so much? Why would the recruit have such a weak weapon?'. It’s just the game’s structure, pure and simple.

Example 2: ’It doesn’t make sense that you can’t pre-load 4 squaddies in an APC AND take another 4, or another APC with 4 soldiers, in the plane’.

Ok, so then the devs let you do that because ‘it’s logical’ and looks like it makes sense in the plane diagram grid. But now they have to rebalance; perhaps make enemies tougher/increase enemy numbers. Why? Because being able to take 8 soldeirs and 1-2 vehicles makes the game easier, whether the person wanted it or not. Or they make the soldiers/vehicle weaker. Then people say, ’Why is the APC made of cardboard? It’s not realistic!’.

My point is that whatever way you look at it, it’s just about creating challenge, balance and gameplay mechanics/progression. You don’t play chess and say, ’What? The King can only move one square? Unrealistic. Give him greater movement.' If you did, then you’d have to rebalance the other pieces but why bother when the game works great as it is?

1 Like

It’s true what you’re saying, but also true that that re-balancing can still be done, especially whilst the game is pre-release.

Yeah, but chess has been out for a while now. :wink:

1 Like

Whaaat?! It went gold already? Thought it was still in early-access. :slight_smile:


Chess is clearly in very early access as we still don’t understand optimal play. Computers are still teaching us.
Okay, I couldn’t resist making this illogical, but funny, point.

1 Like