Daniel Lepage on 2 Apr 2003 18:25:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Prop 1418

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10:20  PM, Glotmorf wrote:

Yes, but if there's multiple power plants, which one
melts down?  Which oen gets destroyed is, as proposed,
random; which one gets deactivated could be random

Mostly I just think we should be trying to avoid adding something else that needs to be tracked; it's simpler if each improvement has two states: There and Not There, instead of three - Active, Inactive, and Not There.

BTW, as proposed, a random *improvement* would be destroyed, not a power plant. Destroying a random power plant would a useless die roll, as the destruction of one plant would invariably lead to overworking all other powerplants. Thus, a well-aimed strike that took out three central power plants would wreak havoc on someone - all eir power plants would overload and die if this happened.

A better way to do it might be to have each plant provide power over a given radius; even if there's only one other building in said radius, the plant still doesn't provide any power to further buildings. Then, if too many buildings are put in a plant's radius, it overloads and explodes; this deactivates all buildings in its radius that aren't also in other plants' radii.

Perhaps also little routing stations could be built, which had a radius around them, around which buildings were considered to be in the radius of whatever plant powered the station...


spoon-discuss mailing list