The current building requirement is a bit weird, that it’s a one time trigger.
For example, a mill is required to build a farm, but after the first mill is built, you can continue building unlimited farms regardless of you having a mill on the map or not.
Not sure if this is intentional, but this can be exploited that you can hide your siege workshop near your enemy base by destroying your blacksmith to hide it from enemy scout read.
And I think having at least one predecessor buildings on the map to build the buildings is more fun as that limits some gameplay and make it more interesting, realistic, and competitive.
Not sure if I follow you, you mean deleting your blacksmith so it can’t be scouted and the opponent doesn’t know you may have a siege workshop ?
That’s… not a strategy, that’s more like nonsense play honestly. No one of earth sees an enemy blacksmith and thinks “oh I got to look out for siege workshops”.
But yeah that’s what strategy game scouting is about, you see blacksmith you might expect siege coming soon, maybe for Starcraft 2, maybe for Aoe2 scouting enemy building is not that big deal.
Another point is perhaps this game’s buildings is so tough that normal Dark Age, Feudal Age troops are taking a long time to kill even a barracks.
Scouting is important, but it is mainly about scouting the buildings that someone has. I cant imagine a good example in which case it would make sense to delete a building to hide your strategy. There is a reason why we have to take your example with a grain of salt: You cant find a good example.
If such situation happened, you are most likely already loosing the game. That is also the reason why i said it wont really impact the outcome of games.
meh… you’d be taking a huge hit if you destroyed your blacksmith early in the game, so if you really thought you would get something out of it by doing so then you should be able to do it. As for it making sense, I think of it this way, the construction of those buildings unlocks new knowledge which allows the civ to build new things. Whether that building then stays or not is not relevant, the knowledge has already been gained.
Perhaps I summarise that this game’s technology tree is not that distinct compared to other RTS games, with much longer building hit points to be taken down to try to limit the opponent’s tech tree and viable strategy.
Though the technology tree is such a way that it’s a one-time unlock, it has its own one unit-one population count feature, which makes this game unique.
Let’s leave it be it for now. Thanks to all the above that replied.
I totally disagree. This would give much more values to certain buildings.
Killing a mill in early castle age would be a huge priority,
Killing the blacksmith vs siege civs would be much more meaning full.
Killing Barracks against any non infantery civ would be a decent target.
I’m not saying this is a good/bad or necessary change, but it certainly would have a huge impact on the game. If anything this would be a huge buff to Goths, and I don’t think anyone wants that.
I think this is a cool idea- it will buff infantry and allow for players to target buildings used as walls. It would add strategic depth to the game. Razing an early mill in feudal age with MAA would be strong for example.
Right now, players just ignore targeting buildings to go for unit kills/vill picks (especially in early ages).
I don’t think it’s a bad idea to require atleast 1 of the pre-rec buildings to be existing to build the later buildings.
But yeah don’t delete your blacksmith to try and hide a siege workshop… 97% of the time if someone is in castle age you can assume they’ve built a blacksmith. So the existence of a blacksmith in castle age doesn’t indicate forward siege in any way. Lol
