One of the most important factors in real war is inteligence- gathering data on your opponent, and trying to estimate his strength. Warlight doesn't include that factor- if the game tells you there are 55 men in a territory, then there are 55. (Yes, I know there is the fog feature, but I'm pitching something a little different here.) What if games could be created with "faulty intel", where your views of your opponent were not always accurate? + or - 30% for example. Or maybe you can hide some troops that have been in a territory for a number of turns? (Dug in.) Discussion?

what your talking about is a good idea, but at the same time very complicated and difficult to implement in the game that already has this format.

If you were to go that far in depth with the game, you would probably add a couple other features, otherwise your idea would seem out of place. the kinds of things that you'd probably have to implement are terrain and different kinds of units with different traits and movement, kinda like the game "Civilization". not saying that it cant be done without this, but your feature seems too advanced for a game that seems to be aimed at being simplistic and based on strategy more than knowing the ins and outs of the game.

Civ is my all time favorite game! I nearly flunked out of college playing that game. I frequently played all night. Once I spent a vacation doing nothing but playing it.


To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: I played Civ, I knew Civ, Civ was my favorite game. WL is no Civ.


And the original quote:
"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"

lol, agreed Duke

"Once I spent a vacation doing nothing but playing it."
- haha, awesome.

I like the idea as it invokes good feelings of where this game could potentially go. As well, it would simulate more accurately how much intel one can know for sure by looking at a force. However, I agree with Eagle. Fizzer would not implement it, at least not anytime soon. It goes against one of the first premises of Warlight (Eagle alluded already to the fact that it is meant to be easy to play, just hard to master).

Come to think of it, it could be a good scenario game and one in which I and other players looking for a more in depth gameplay would likely play on a regular basis. The downside is it would delay making moves all the more so I likely would only play a few of them at most. But my ideas are getting ahead of themselves. Good suggestion, but don't hold your breath.

I won't be disappointed if it never happens. It would be a lousy feature for small, quick games, as it'd increase the likelihood that random luck determined the outcome.

And yes, I played all the previous Civs endlessly. Haven't played the latest yet. I never understood why they ditched the airfields and paratroopers.

Sid Meir sold it to Activision and once he stopped being directly in charge of development they went way downhill. Civ 3 was the last really good one. Then there were all these add ons and scenerios. But the actual gameplay didn't improve much between 3 and 4. It just got more choked with videos and animations. The multiplayer was horrible too.

I didn't play after 4. I understand 5 is out now (or coming soon?) let me know if you think it's worth trying.

Not to give away my age, but I started out playing Sid's original Pirates game before he came out with the first Civ.

playing civ IV felt like playing an expansion pack of civ III, seriously.

Civ V is out, and i have it.. it's decent in it's own right, but still not quite the same as the original civ's imho..

and i played the original Pirates/Colonization/Civilization/Master of Orion games.. and i am only 24 :P

did any of you play civ 3 online? I played that game in a ladder league for like 5 years lol

I did but found it unwieldy. I used to post on a civ BBS (civaddict?) and found games there.

I used to play actively here http://www.civplayers.com/

we have leagues set up for civ 3,4 and 5. Originally we used gamespy arcade's pre set league system, but it just wasn't set up properly so we created our own league on www.myleague.com(/civ3players) which was a site that host leagues for darts and billiards. Worked fine for a while until they decided to start charging us a few years back. At our height we had around 500 active players. Until there was a split in the membership. One of the site admins decided to make his own site and run things the way he wanted, taking almost half our members with him. Didn't last too long, but it made a lot of the older adult players stop playing. They didn't care much for the drama and epeen measuring.

Then a few months later civ 4 was released taking a good 60% of our membership initially. About 10-15 people that went on to civ 4 came back saying it was junk. Me included xD

Civ 3 is the ultimate online strategy game. We played ffa's a little differently. League rules for games we called Cton's were that you can't contact or form alliances with other players. Strictly everyone against everyone. Most for ancient era start games, and they were almost always played on one city elimination setting. Made for really intense games. But we also had a huge group of players that liked to played future start scenarios with one king regicide mode on. With cruise missles and nuking it was insane if you had people that actually knew what they were doing. The community is almost completely dead now though. This time last year it still had at least 40 or so active players. Now every time I log into gamespy the lobby is just plain empty. As it should be though. Old ass game, lived a lot longer than most ^^

Leagues devoted to a single game almost always collapse with time, as the old timers move on to try newer games, and the site fails to attack enough replacements to keep it alive. Gaming sites that are broader in their scope, encompassing multiple game formats, have a greater chance of a long run.

Pirates came out in 1987, you were 1 when it came out if you're 24 now. It's not that I doubt your story, it's just that you played the re-release.

It's like the difference between the original NWN and the new one..

but no, i've played both.. not when they were box new of course, but i was on a computer at 6 playing games, which is probably part of the reason for my current addiction, lol

my dad says i was on at 18months, on his lap playing on it at least, but nothing practical, and nothing i remember.