RAH rules: Description and Origination of

[rah]

I see this is as the perfect place to discuss. When we come to a agreement, CW can add or delete from the original post. These types of ongoing discussions will also keep the thread near the top for easy reference.

Bomber coverage.
(YEAH LIKE WE EVER GET THAT FAR )
Seriously though..... I have mixed thoughts on this one. Definitely no on the whole xpack concept with airport/fortress, that seems a bit excessive. On normal bomber coverage, I would lean to NO, not acceptable. But could be convinced otherwise if overwhelming thougt otherwise.

Other opinions.

I SAY NO TO BOMBER COVERAGE.

Rich

[ColdWizard]

i also say no to bomber stacking/shielding. seems like an unintended consequence to fighters being the only unit able to attack bombers

[Scouse Gits]

Started a poll over on Strat - last I looked three nays and nary an aye -- we certainly have disallowed less questionable moves in the past - I still smart from Airbases - it seems to me that by Radio one can argue convincingly for an Engineer upgrade that allows all kinds of terrain magic - but I lost -- similarly Caravan rehoming is to me much more realistic than Bomber Shielding (?BS?)

[DrSpike]

Well I'm off to strat to vote yes to bomber shielding. I can see I'm going to be in the minority here.

[ColdWizard]

but why do you say yes?

[rah]

Yes, please tell us your reasoning, I see people kinda waffling here, and possibly being able to be convinced. I am far from rock solid on this one.

How about airbases? I say no inside of city radius.
creating air shields that way is silly, and the extra production is def a cheat.


CW, add no caravan rehoming to the list. forgot that one.

RAH

[ColdWizard]

re: airbases. i can live with them outside city radius so long as they do not become within the radius of new cities. pre-existing airbases that find themselves within a new radius should be pillaged before the city is put down.

[DrSpike]

I've had a couple of drinks this evening (sorry I mean I attended the meeting of the strategic gaming society - we don't have our own premises but we found a few places that were willing to accommodate our discussions of.......civ) but I'll have a go.

My reasons:

1) It is not that the player shielding cannot be attacked, but that he can just be attacked with fighter units. I don't think this is unreasonable. It is a factor in war that when a country gets air superiority ground troops are less effective. Bomber shielding seems a fair representation of this.

2) A less fundamental argument perhaps, but relatively this seems as fair as other ZOC tricks.

3) It is always hard to say what the intended effect of units was, but I think the fact that ZOC for air units works the same way in SMAC is indicative of intent. As an aside I don't think SMAC players consider this an exploit (and it exactly the same principle).

4) A wise man on these forums once (I can't remember who, sorry ) justified the dubious process of preworking settlers by arguing that it wasn't an exploit because there was a strategic cost to the strat. Having a trade-off, an opportunity cost, is critical, otherwise you have uberstrats. Such no-brainers are not conducive to balanced skilful play. This also applies here, since there is a cost and a risk. Other strats that players now take for granted such as black square clicking, triangulation of city location, etc etc, are all things which have no justification other than the fact they are there, with no opportunity cost. These are what you should look at first IMO I suspect the only reason they are there is that you cannot regulate these areas.

Hope that helps.

Anyway I guess this is kinda moot as MP games aren't going to reach flight.

[DrSpike]

To muddy the waters further I was surprised to see SG felt using airbases as anything other than an airbase was valid. This is clearly against intent, and somewhat of a no-brainer strategically in a lot of cases. I think it thus fails both tests.

CR is a tricky one, but since the resource and trade route is coming from the original city I think it is dubious, and would probably disallow it. There is a lot of skill with caravans though, I can see why some want it to be allowed.

Anyway I apologise if my simple request for a posting of the RAH rules has reopened what may be tired arguments for long time MPers. You have your rules and they have stood the test of time.

I just realised how appropriate that was

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by DrSpike
My reasons:

1) It is not that the player shielding cannot be attacked, but that he can just be attacked with fighter units. I don't think this is unreasonable. It is a factor in war that when a country gets air superiority ground troops are less effective. Bomber shielding seems a fair representation of this.

less effective yes, but bomber shielding makes it impossible for ground units to attack in the first place

[Bloody Monk]

This is very interesting even for the bleacher bums who don't have MP. Just one question, please.... What do you mean by TINY ROCKS??? Thanks

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by DrSpike
To muddy the waters further I was surprised to see SG felt using airbases as anything other than an airbase was valid. This is clearly against intent, and somewhat of a no-brainer strategically in a lot of cases. I think it thus fails both tests.

Feel free to muddy away ... I think you are probably right - it is a no brainer, but it appealed to me when I 'discovered'/re-discovered/read in the forum about it (I cannot honestly recall which it was) - but the people here were very clear that they viewed it a cheat - so cheat it is and no more do I even think about it -- vet Crooks and Super Ironclads do all the damage way before Radio -- Caravan rehoming is as has been said above a much more difficult case - the concensus is no, but as I recall the last debate was close. Now bomber shielding - strikes me as totally counter intuitive - if there were some variant of 'fighter shielding' I could see this as air cover, but with bombers - it just doesn't work for me -- result - if the vote goes as seems likely in its favour - I shan't complain if anyone shields their troops, I just won't do it myself.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
This is very interesting even for the bleacher bums who don't have MP. Just one question, please.... What do you mean by TINY ROCKS??? Thanks

It means small maps. Such maps have a larger concentration of mountainous areas than you're probably used to. At least that is what I always thought Rah and co meant.

[Scouse Gits]

Even though its disallowed - What is "Unit Teleporting"?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

if the vote goes as seems likely in its favour - I shan't complain if anyone shields their troops, I just won't do it myself.

Everyone should have the same strategic resources open to them. Everyone has to use strats they find annoying sometimes if this is to be the case.

Only strats that aren't too unbalancing will survive in the long run. For me realism arguments always take a back seat to balance/playability arguments. It may be that your gut feeling is correct and this strat shouldn't be allowed, but I had to argue (well it started as just me - last time I looked the yes votes were pulling ahead) since it really doesn't seem detrimental.