Tweet
map lag: the time that it takes you to assemble a sufficient attack force
After discussing whether combat should favor the attacker or defender I started thinking about some games and how things were handled.
RISK: attacker can place some new armies (massing troops) each turn, he has trouble bringing other armies into the fight (you only get one move per turn). The attacker generally has to have more men (so he can leave one behind, also the number of dice). The attacker is slighly favored. So basically the game has very high map lag but it is partially counteracted by the free armies at the beggining of the turn.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms II: This is a different type of TBS game, things are done by region. In the actual combat things are done by the square on the regional combat map. Moving your armies between provinces is fairly slow. However you can typically manipulate events so that the attacker has a numerical advantage in combat. The defender has a small advantage (he starts in/closer to the forts and castles). Fairly low map lag.
civ: it is hard to mass your army quickly in any one place (except late game, then it breaks down) and the attacker has the advantage. Very high map lag.
I think it comes down to how hard it is to attack and how long it takes to get there. So if by the time you get there several production cycles have passed you will lose. If movement is swift and massing troops is simple then the defender will lose.
Throughout the game these things change too. Does it become easier or harder to mass troops as the game progresses (distace makes it harder but the increased production makes it easier)?
Also you have to consider how many civs you will likely border on each side. If you are at war you might lose your homeland so war should be profitable, otherwise it would be unlikely. However if it is too profitable people will just go on rampages constanly and never become attached to particular areas. In one versus one games you want the overall combination of factors to make combat fairly even for both players. At the very beggining of the game the defender should have a small advantage (otherwise someone will be killed in the first few turns, not a fun game) and at the very end of the game the attacker should have a small advantage (otherwise stalemates would be common). By advantage I am referring to the whole picture.
Conclusions:
a high production cycle to map lag ratio favors the defender
a high map lag to return on investment ratio favors the defender
so army mobility should be based on economic cycles and combat advantages should be based on army mobility.
After discussing whether combat should favor the attacker or defender I started thinking about some games and how things were handled.
RISK: attacker can place some new armies (massing troops) each turn, he has trouble bringing other armies into the fight (you only get one move per turn). The attacker generally has to have more men (so he can leave one behind, also the number of dice). The attacker is slighly favored. So basically the game has very high map lag but it is partially counteracted by the free armies at the beggining of the turn.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms II: This is a different type of TBS game, things are done by region. In the actual combat things are done by the square on the regional combat map. Moving your armies between provinces is fairly slow. However you can typically manipulate events so that the attacker has a numerical advantage in combat. The defender has a small advantage (he starts in/closer to the forts and castles). Fairly low map lag.
civ: it is hard to mass your army quickly in any one place (except late game, then it breaks down) and the attacker has the advantage. Very high map lag.
I think it comes down to how hard it is to attack and how long it takes to get there. So if by the time you get there several production cycles have passed you will lose. If movement is swift and massing troops is simple then the defender will lose.
Throughout the game these things change too. Does it become easier or harder to mass troops as the game progresses (distace makes it harder but the increased production makes it easier)?
Also you have to consider how many civs you will likely border on each side. If you are at war you might lose your homeland so war should be profitable, otherwise it would be unlikely. However if it is too profitable people will just go on rampages constanly and never become attached to particular areas. In one versus one games you want the overall combination of factors to make combat fairly even for both players. At the very beggining of the game the defender should have a small advantage (otherwise someone will be killed in the first few turns, not a fun game) and at the very end of the game the attacker should have a small advantage (otherwise stalemates would be common). By advantage I am referring to the whole picture.
Conclusions:
a high production cycle to map lag ratio favors the defender
a high map lag to return on investment ratio favors the defender
so army mobility should be based on economic cycles and combat advantages should be based on army mobility.
.
One of the greatest strategies ever. Sorry for bumping the thread, I'll create a new one.
Comment