Original post by eiforall theOcelot, yes you can totally ignore points, and you can attack them from six sides, 2aw is set in 3d like homeworld. But ignoring points will make you loose the battle.
I didn't say I wanted to totally ignore points. I'm just saying that if ignoring points makes you lose the battle, it should at least mostly be because owning a points gives some material advantage.
Original post by eiforall Talroth, Yes but then the other play could play a cat and mouse games, cap all the points and stay out of range of the slow moving blob, as it only holds 1-2 points at a time the mouse will win.
And what stops either player from playing "Cat and Mouse" with any sized group, and running from every battle in an attempt to just keep exchanging cap points?
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Original post by Talroth And what stops either player from playing "Cat and Mouse" with any sized group, and running from every battle in an attempt to just keep exchanging cap points?
This is precisely the kind of thing that annoyed me in DoW II: the constant chasing of pathetic little blobs that would sneak through your lines and capture all your points. It is definitely an issue which is worth addressing IMHO.
It didn't annoy so much in DoW 1 simply because there were more options available to defend the points - the most important being the Listening Post upgrades which acted as both a speedbump and a light defense against harassment. Even the basic listening posts would often slow down capture enough to allow a relief force time to intercept and deal with the problem, and the upgraded posts had turrets which could actually destroy an unprepared harassing force.
Once you've got most of the points, you should (ideally) be able to hold all of them fairly securely and still have a force or two available for mopping up the little holdouts.
I like control points, and I like the idea of separation of points instead of a flat goal-line. To create interesting scenarios, you need to be able to easily manipulate the value of each control point. I think there are at least three ways you could do this.
1. Geographic location. Easily defensible CPs are more valuable, etc.
2. Victory value. Some CPs could give give more points than others, and some could have increasing or decreasing returns. Points per second could be 10, 20, 5+0.2X, 40-0.5X, or could use any other simple formula (X = seconds you have controlled CP). These could be easily manipulated by the designer to re-prioritize targets.
3. Military value. CPs that have static defense, or that give an AoE movement bonus to your ships, or that increase LoS, etc. could be important in different situations.
Outside of control points, I think that any tactical game must have interesting terrain. Focus conflicts around strings of asteroids, derelict freighters, above a moon's surface, contrast large open spaces with tight constricting spaces on the same map. Anything you can think of to throw a wrench into cookie cutter strategies. I'll make some sample maps for you as well, although they'll only be in 2D.
