Marmot
Auto-translated
Why is this message separated from the relevant discussion? Where is at least a link to it? Did one of the moderators move the message to a separate topic so as not to continue the discussion in the Tournaments topic, where it's not allowed? What will be discussed here?
I’ll search the forum for that kamukag3e message now; maybe things will become clearer.
Okay, found it. It’s clear now. Now we need to formulate the topic more clearly.
By the way, I would also like to express my vision of the shortcomings of diplomacy in its initial state in SoD and options for improving it instead of banning it. But I have to write a lot, and I don’t feel like it right now. The main drawback: strengthening an already strong opponent by adding neutral units (when they already have a powerful army and plenty of money). Diplomacy should, logically, help the weak, not the other way around. In short: perhaps it would be better to attach them based on kinship: the same race, the same creatures, and if the hero is not too strong; otherwise, let the neutrals just fight or run away. Attaching for money in its original form is evil.
I’ll add: let attaching neutral units through diplomacy be limited to levels 1-4 or 1-5 creatures, and only creatures that appeared on the map at the beginning of the week/month can join. Also, due to the increase in these stacks, they can only join during that week (it can be determined by the criterion "the week of such-and-such creatures has begun," if this is stored somewhere in the variables) so that someone doesn't take a legion of gremlins after months. Or even better: neutral units will only join during the first month; then their numbers in the stacks won't have time to grow significantly.
I’ll search the forum for that kamukag3e message now; maybe things will become clearer.
Okay, found it. It’s clear now. Now we need to formulate the topic more clearly.
By the way, I would also like to express my vision of the shortcomings of diplomacy in its initial state in SoD and options for improving it instead of banning it. But I have to write a lot, and I don’t feel like it right now. The main drawback: strengthening an already strong opponent by adding neutral units (when they already have a powerful army and plenty of money). Diplomacy should, logically, help the weak, not the other way around. In short: perhaps it would be better to attach them based on kinship: the same race, the same creatures, and if the hero is not too strong; otherwise, let the neutrals just fight or run away. Attaching for money in its original form is evil.
I’ll add: let attaching neutral units through diplomacy be limited to levels 1-4 or 1-5 creatures, and only creatures that appeared on the map at the beginning of the week/month can join. Also, due to the increase in these stacks, they can only join during that week (it can be determined by the criterion "the week of such-and-such creatures has begun," if this is stored somewhere in the variables) so that someone doesn't take a legion of gremlins after months. Or even better: neutral units will only join during the first month; then their numbers in the stacks won't have time to grow significantly.
Воскресайте, камінні душі, Розчиняйте серця і чоло, Щоб не сказали Про вас грядущі: їх на землі не було…
(Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)
(Василь Симоненко. Люди – прекрасні)