COMBAT (ver 1.2) hosted by CyberShy

[redleg]

Upcoming -

This weekend I will summarize the thread and post it NLT Mon Jul 5. Please look my summary over and critique it so I can make changes and turn it in NLT the end of the week.

------------------
Redleg

Small minds talk about people, Average minds talk about events, Great minds talk about ideas.

[Theben]

RE: range,

Range should reflect the domain the unit operates in-land units have land range, sea units sea range, etc.

Differences in range are subtracted from each other. The remainder is the # of "free hits" the higher range unit may inflict on the lower. 'Free-hit'= The 'attacker' attempts to hit the 'defender'. If successful the defender takes the attacker's firepower in damage. Faster units subtract/add one range for each movement point difference between the two sides, depending on terrain.

I'm changing my LASS(land/air/sea/space) to LASOR (land/air/sea/orbital/range) so I can keep silly acronyms.

ember,
Some units should still have STR in a domain even if they cannot attack into that domain. A "special option" (which would increase the cost depending on the domain STR only) could enable the unit to attack into that domain. Some units would be able to attack into other domains naturally (air units).

[ember]

How can they have strength in a domain if they cannot engage in combat?
Do you mean something like cannons have to wait for the ships to attack to come in range within their square?
I guess you could just have an 'engage domain' set of flags.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Theben]

"Do you mean something like cannons have to wait for the ships to attack to come in range within their square?"
Exactly that. The combat is determined by the ships, since they move, but the cannon can engage once the ships move close enough to attack.

"I guess you could just have an 'engage domain' set of flags."
Or a "special option" a la SMAC, but the same idea.

[Depp]

I have though about leaders...

Why not have headquarters instead, that contribute to each and every units fighting capabillity in a certain radio? Like in the WW2 boardgames... That would make more sense than leaders really. The HQ coudl give a +25% attack and defence bonus or movement bonus (at least one).

Leaders could still be used, like there is a 1% chance every turn that a unique (very good) leader emerges, and he stays like 20-40 years /whatever that means in turns for the moment. He will double the effectivness of the HQ or grant other benefits.

Maybe one should limit the amount of leaders a civ could gain in a game to like 10 in total, so you don´t have to find that much names and stuff

What do you all say?

[Jon Miller]

This is a real short idea really and forgive me if someone has already mentioned it but in order to make warfare not just be about troops vrs cities how about an enemy troop making every surrounding square in his zoc unusable unless a freindly unit was in it, this would make keeping enemy units out of your land very important


Jon Miller

[Flavor Dave]

Jon--there's been some discussion that sieges need to be more potent, and your idea would add to that. IMO, it would add too much. How about, if you have a unit adjacent to a city, the tiles on the side away from the city are unusable. This should also apply to sea tiles.

[Theben]

I'll back Flav Dave on this one. I'd also include that other cities can send support if they can trace supply to the city, over land, via sea, or thru the air (limited).