Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Jedyte

Choosing which region to defend in a Cadence attack rarely offers interesting choice

Recommended Posts

I like how different regions offer different advantages, and disadvantages, such as the bonuses. But when you have Cadence attack, it's pretty much a no-brainer which region to defend: the one with the most corruption. Since this is the ONLY chance you have of reducing corruption, the penalty of not responding is too high. Sadly, this makes the mission-specific bonuses (such as an extra hero, or research bonus) irrelevant in that choice too.

I wonder if other people feel the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It becomes more of an issue later into the game.

In the beginning it was, like you've said, a no brainier. Kinda a game of hot potato.

Then I had the issue of no children, so my heroes soon disappeared.

I had 1 extra corruption added to an area because I lost a battle, and then another because I had no troops. So instead of having 1 corruption on 1 realm I now had 1 on 3.

Later on the corruption can attack 3 realms at once. I've only had this happen once but as a result of all this I've lost two realms completely, because it was a choice between that or losing one with a keep on it.

I like how it makes you feel like every mistakes makes the noose tighten, but the baby in me wishes I had additional options to remove the cadence influence from an area.

Perhaps it would be a good option to be able to research a one use item that would remove 1 cadence influence from a realm. The time it takes to research could be high and it could also require some rare resources (x amount of biggest bad enemy). Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah early game defending a region might be an easy choice (especially if you have a keep in an outer area) but mid game it starts to get more interesting. The rewards can sometimes be quite the boon (a new baby or hero can add some diversity into the gene pool) but also if you pay attention to the types of enemies, sometimes the "easy" choice means fighting enemies which you have a harder time against. Would you rather fight seeds, lapses, and ruptures? Or lapses, bulwarks, and wrinklers? Personally, I'd rather fight the former :-P. Also, if you really want a certain research project, you'll want to fight against the enemies which will give you bodies to use for that project. Mid-late game these choices do become harder and eventually you will lose a region, even if you win all of your battles - especially when the cadence attack three regions simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...if you pay attention to the types of enemies, sometimes the "easy" choice means fighting enemies which you have a harder time against. Would you rather fight seeds, lapses, and ruptures? Or lapses, bulwarks, and wrinklers? ...

I totally haven't noticed that it gives you information about what you fight. Has it always done that? Does it say the level of difficulty of the fight?

I'm on around year 200 and i've never noticed this :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...if you pay attention to the types of enemies, sometimes the "easy" choice means fighting enemies which you have a harder time against. Would you rather fight seeds, lapses, and ruptures? Or lapses, bulwarks, and wrinklers? ...

I totally haven't noticed that it gives you information about what you fight. Has it always done that? Does it say the level of difficulty of the fight?

I'm on around year 200 and i've never noticed this :o

It's there, in the Pre-battle breakdown. Personally, I've always taken the stance that Regens that have a keep are worth keeping Cadence free as much ass possible, only so they don't influence random events so much. That's not very good strategically though I suppose, but it's how I've been looking at it. I guess I need to look at it much deeper then I have been doing so far. For the long haul!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the OP that the choice between a 1 and a 0 corruption region is usually a no-brainer (early on a big reward can swing it, since the 1 region wont die if it goes to 2).

But that still means that the choice between regions with even levels of corruption is governed by the bonus you'd get and the toughness of the suspected enemy types, which I think is OK.

Unless the corruption strike counter increases to 4, there are few rewards big enough to compensate for the loss of a region. Maybe a relic or high level hero early in the game. I'd sacrifice a region for an early unbound relic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In XCom, most of the time I was trying to keep the world balanced, going after the most panic regions, regardless of whatever the rewards were. And if I got to a point where I ever lost a country in a continent, I tended to ignore that continent more so since it was a bit of a lost cause. Sometimes I'd go after specific rewards, and toward the mid or late game I'd go towards new leveled soldiers. It sounds pretty similar to MC. I am not sure what more can be done to make things more interesting, though I like the idea of an unbound relic "forgotten to time."

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I am at the mid game were 3-way invasions are happening.. Yes, when 2 equally corrupted regions are under attack, the region bonuses and battle bonuses play.. but this has only happened once (I'm at year 170).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In XCom, most of the time I was trying to keep the world balanced, going after the most panic regions, regardless of whatever the rewards were. And if I got to a point where I ever lost a country in a continent, I tended to ignore that continent more so since it was a bit of a lost cause. Sometimes I'd go after specific rewards, and toward the mid or late game I'd go towards new leveled soldiers. It sounds pretty similar to MC. I am not sure what more can be done to make things more interesting, though I like the idea of an unbound relic "forgotten to time."

Smiles

Though I haven't seen it myself yet, im sure theres a random event where you get a relic (it was in the patch notes). a relic as the occasional mission reward would be nice as well I think.

the best strategy in XCOM at least early was to rush engineers. It was all about the reward from the mission regardless of the panic.

Panic balancing only came in later, after you had your economy established, and panic levels had risen to the point where they posed a threat.

Since the game bothers to give you a choice which region to defend, that choice should be a meaningful one more often than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that has been sacrificing regions really early (i.e. from the very first battle where you had a choice to get three corruption in a region vs. a region you actually have a building in?) and just decided that some areas are cannon fodder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one that has been sacrificing regions really early (i.e. from the very first battle where you had a choice to get three corruption in a region vs. a region you actually have a building in?) and just decided that some areas are cannon fodder?

Haven't done that yet no... What's the advantage?

This gets me thinking... Isn't the punishment for losing a region an even greater chance to lose a region? Feels like a downward spiral if you either lose a keep (no more heroes), a crucible (no more xp) or a guild (no more research).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you get to the point where I am now. No more Caberjacks :(

This'll probably be patched out when classes mix, but right now I have no easy way to reintroduce them. Just hunters and Alchemists now.

The keep I had making Caberjacks suddenly started making Hunters and I didn't realize until it was too late...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one that has been sacrificing regions really early (i.e. from the very first battle where you had a choice to get three corruption in a region vs. a region you actually have a building in?) and just decided that some areas are cannon fodder?

Haven't done that yet no... What's the advantage?

This gets me thinking... Isn't the punishment for losing a region an even greater chance to lose a region? Feels like a downward spiral if you either lose a keep (no more heroes), a crucible (no more xp) or a guild (no more research).

But the thing is, what I did was choose to be able to save a region from getting two corruption in it by defending that region, and instead letting the region I have no building in fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be good to have the option to defend multiple regions if you have a certain mount of keeps to do so.

In the later game you more often then not have to choose 1 of 3 regions to protect from the cadence. So why not have the option to ward off at least 2 of the attacks?

If you have 0-2 keeps you can send off one party through the chalice, if you have 3+ keeps you can send two parties off, but they'd have to be unique heroes for each party. No doubling up aloud. Meaning you could only do this if you have enough heroes to do so, and there's a greater risk reward to doing so. If all your heroes die it won't do allot for the bloodlines and sagewrites.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...