This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Some proposals to implement *sieges*
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Some proposals to implement *sieges*
- From: Stan Shebs <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:23:04 -0700
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:59:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bruno Boettcher <email@example.com>
> move through neutral or controlled hexes? Then a siege could be declared
> by cutting enemy supply lines.
then you have to control all hexes around a place... but then natural
protections should be taken into consideration such as water, sharp
Ooh yeah, complicated.
BTW do units standing on top of a hill get advantage over those attacking
from the foot of that hill?
Not currently. From what I can tell from games that implement this,
the effect is subtle, and they usually restrict to 2-3 distinct altitudes,
while Xconq can have many. So I've been unsure about what sort of GDL
spec would make sense for this effect.
and what about the from me so beloved building of roads ? ;)
I assume you're referring to the standard game. For a long time I
thought that allowing road-building was unnecessary and complicating,
because chains of bases have a similar effect, and allow for battles
to focus on controlling the bases, which wouldn't happen for roads.
But on the other hand, road-building only comes into play if players
are advanced enough to know about it. One practical problem is that
currently the unit would be able to build 1 segment of road each turn;
there is no notion of a not-yet-completed road. The closest you could
get was to allow negative acp, which I consider too complicated to be
desirable for the standard game.
So if everybody agrees that allowing infantry to build road, at a rate
of 1 segment/turn, is OK and won't unbalance the game, then I'm
willing to make the change.