Re: Combat

Greg Lindahl (
Fri, 23 Sep 1994 13:51:43 -0400

On Sep 23, 10:39, Scott Turner wrote:

> Here are the shortcomings I see in the current combat system, in order
> of importance as I rate them:

One that you left off, and that I think is most important.

* The current combat system often leaves the winner stronger than when
they started.

Comment: This is a big misfeature. Attacking someone ought to cost you
more troops than you capture. The reward for attacking is loot (gold)
or capturing terrain or whatever.

Proposed solution: Have 1/2 of the captured troops desert. Or, make
desertion inversely porportional to the losses that the attacker suffers.

> * The current system weights numerical superiority too highly.

This is a shortcoming in some situations and not others. I think it's
bad that clever players will take hordes of peasants to kill dragons,
but it's good that player/player combat has some interesting tradeoffs
between many easy-to-raise troops and few hard-to-raise troops. The
first army is generally more expensive for maintenance than the
second, so I think we will see many different styles of army out there
*because* of the numerical superiority "problem". More ways to do it
is a good thing.

So let's fix the first and not "fix" the second, because the second is
a feature.

> * An outmatched force can be killed/captured by using repeated
> attacks, even if it "escapes" the first attack.

This is a problem. I don't like auto-move-away (it was certainly silly
in OlyI, with Carl Edman's army chasing 3 of my guys all over
Chardia). But I think something like the can't-be-attacked-flag would work.
This flag would have to last long enough to allow the defeated force
to move to an adjacent province.

> * The current system does not permit mixed forces under the same
> noble.

As Scott says, this could be a feature or a bug. I think it's a
feature. Noble points are expensive, and I think that a player willing
to risk more noble points ought to have a reward. This is it.

> * The breaking rule for the current system has some non-intuitive
> results.

I don't think this is a problem. But then again, I suggested the
current system.

-- g (who studies general relativistic numerical hydrodynamics, and
thinks any part of quantum other than quantum gravity can be mostly

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links