Re: More proposals (was Re: Sieges...)

[Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>]

   From: Sami P Perttu <perttu@cc.helsinki.fi>
   Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:08:53 +0300 (EET DST)

   -If a unit has a ZOC that limits nearby movement (e.g. in adjacent
    cells), there seems to be no way to separately stop enemy units from
    entering the cell it's occupying. This is more damaging to game play
    than it seems.

I considered this a bug, and it's fixed now; there is a separate
"mp-to-enter-own" (something like that) that by default disables
entering a unit's own cell, independent of ZOC.

   -In reality, WW2 era air units couldn't wipe out armies. They should
    somehow be restricted to ground support missions in that respect. In
    order to implement that I suggest a new concept, "pressure". Some
    attacks could cause pressure in place of, or in addition of, potential
    damage. When a unit is under pressure it has lower chances to survive
    any subsequent battles and a higher chance to be forced to withdraw
    when attacked. Pressure could last one turn only or be gradually
    diminished over many turns. The concept of pressure could be used to
    simulate concerted attacks, too - something I gather is missing
    entirely from XConq at the moment.

Yes.  I was defining a notion of "battle" at one point, with units
able to join in or extricate themselves, by adjusting commitment
levels up and down.  It's very complicated to define commands to
run this sort of thing, which is where I got bogged down.

To solve the immediate problem of air destroying armies, you could use
the HP lower limit of damage, so air could take out 1 HP with low
odds, but never do any worse damage.

   As nice as the standard game is, it's really just a frantic action game
   with the current rules. I want more depth, please.

We've got, what, 800 kinds properties and tables now?  If this isn't
plenty, then we're doing something wrong.  (Hmmm, there's an idea;
can't add any new properties or tables without identifying and removing
something useless...)

   > IMHO, one big fat feature missing from xconq is a way to implement
   > sieges.  In many historical periods sieges were a focal point of
   > warfare; it is currently impossible to design a game approximating
   > them even roughly.

   Yes, Empires In Arms comes to mind... there is a wealth of excellent
   rules regarding sieges in various board games, just adapt some from
   there.

The ones I've looked at seemed to depend on an explicit declaration of
sieging.  I'm not opposed to adding additional special actions, and in
fact there are some good playability reasons in requiring players to
make this sort of intention more explicit than just moving into a
nearby cell.

							Stan