Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
No, because building constructions is (and should be) a strategic choice which will affect your entire round.
|
Errr? Whatever you do with your constructions it affects your round, destroying them would affect it, keeping them would affect it, i don't really see where you are trying to go with this. I for one believe that the ability to destroy constructions might actually be more interesting strategically in the long run (admittedly it would probably require a more exciting and diverse constructions/techtree than what we have atm, but the possibility would be there).
i don't agree it would make the game easier either, given the right cost for destroying your constructions (i.e. it takes 1 tick + 20% of the building cost to remove a construction). It would actually add some more options to switch gameplay or focus during the (short) round and perhaps make the game a bit more exciting in terms of planet management.
Quote:
|
Why make the game easier? It's a challenge to get to 150 amps for a reason - because you're sacrificing a lot to reach that pinnacle.
|
it would still be a challange? It still a choise to be high on amps from the start, which helps your alliance by being able to scan the heavy dist whores aswell, opposed to a slower start to get other benefits (fast research) while being able to scan less targets. I really don't see the issue. Its still quite alot of work to get to 150 amps regardless of being able to destroy buildings in the process.