should smac2 be liberal or conservitive?

[Kataphraktoi]

that depends.if you read the generals 300 page write up that lands on your desk 2 weeks later,im sure it would tell you.or do you mean,from where the general is? that depends on whether or not the unit could leave without being hit much. the way i would have it,the whole world would be 'real',aka the rover got away cause the pursuing rovers couldnt cross the stream in real time fast enough to get there

and yes im aware of the implications of that on hardware demands..........

this probably is for smac4 or 5 really

[Commy]

Perhaps there shouldn't be PBEM's in a real time stra...RTS?

To help Cataphract887 improvise...

Perhaps you give all your units, leaders, whatever, future orders...

If the enemy retreats, follow him, or if the enemy attacks, fall back, or something like that...

Also, perhaps you selectively choose all your leaders and generals from a list...each one has a different personality, and some are more likely to retreat while others are more likely to follow a routing enemy...so you wouldn't have to necessarily make the command, rather pray you have good generals...more realistic really, as I don't see the Peacekeeper citizens voting Lal in every year in his "democracy" and letting Lal control the military...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PJayTycy
So, for example: 2 rovers are facing each other. One is ordered to drive away, the other is ordered to attack. What happens ?

One drives away and the other one moves into the vaccant spot.

[Commy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger One drives away and the other one moves into the vaccant spot.

But this presents a problem...what if both rovers are impact rover?

Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it...

Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing...

Ultimately, I think it is rather absurd to try and play a real-time game of any sort by PBEM...it just doesn't work...

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by Commy


But this presents a problem...what if both rovers are impact rover?

Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it...

The concepts of attacker and defender would need to be revised. Logically, both are the attacker since both would shoot at each other, and both are the defender, since both are being shot. Neither is pinned down, or trying to protect any territory, they're just shooting at each other in the open.

Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing...

If the players are being that fickle about their rovers' movements, then no, but if player A wants to advance or claim territory, then he can't dance with player B's rover like that.

Ultimately, I think it is rather absurd to try and play a real-time game of any sort by PBEM...it just doesn't work...

These issues are pertinent to truly simultaneous turns as well, and are soluble.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Commy
Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it...

Since all combats are resolved simultaneously - or else this won't work - Rover A won't be attacked by Rover B next turn.

Originally posted by Commy
Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing...

Why? Rover A could attack Rover B again, or player B moves his rover with a defender, etc.

[cal_01]

Well, this is why I prefer Rise of Nations' combat system over most Civ-like games I play.

Then again, this is an AC thread, so I should be running away right now...