Andy 60 Posted October 28, 2008 That was kind of my point. You can't be totally reliant on ground troops... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chickenman 9 Posted October 29, 2008 (edited) Ok, in defense of my rich war-like people. 1). Superweapons are worthless, because my people are ground fighters. Yeah, nuclear weapons are TOTALLY ineffective against infantry. As long as they have wooden desks to hide under. 2). Wealth is more than just in the government. The US was rich, but it wouldn't have the money and time to build a Death Star... the money for my people would be from trade, not conquest, therefore the money would be in the people, not the government. You don't say. And also important, set calcuations need to be done as how a battle is won/lost. Certain games (so that way we can influence the battle like a General would) or such can be played to see who'd win and how many soldiers would live and how many are injured. Same thing can be done for economy. ...making this less an RPG and more a real time strategy game. Thing I hate about RTSes is that there's no room for improvisation or anything. This way makes your battles slightly less thrilling than a chess game. As for simulating an economy...yeah, go ahead. If you're that masochistic. Edited October 29, 2008 by Chickenman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
