# Re: (none)

Morton M. Charnley (ac217@detroit.freenet.org)
Fri, 30 Sep 1994 20:30:51 -0400

>
>> Why is a "bad thing" if targets of attacks are delayed one day? Only makes
>> sense to me, that being attacked should should slow you down. I supose if it
>> "stop"ed a move, that WOULD be bad, but making the move take a day longer,
>> that seems right. I know that people will use small, throw away stacks to
>> slow large stacks, but if your willing to sacrafice NP's to slow an enemy,
>> why not.
>
>This was my original thinking, but a couple of players argued that it
>makes turns too hard to predict, and that it's unreasonable for a single
>kamikaze unit to be able to delay a huge killer stack for a day.

While there is validity to this statement, you can't have it both ways. Why
is it any more valid that it takes a killer stack 1 day to dispose of a single
noble. The only arguement that makes sense is that it takes a day to find and
corner him. However, I would argue that the only way he is going to avoid a
killer stack with lots of 'pieces' to look for him is to actively try to
avoid them which takes time also. To be fair, you either need to have
both stacks take a day or neither.

The only problem I can see with this is that it makes it quite difficult for
someone to get away without being drawn in to multiple battles. I submit that
OTHER actions need to be take to mitigate this problem. Let thier be a flag
for each stack that can be set to avoid contact with other units. If this
flag is set, other units will have a harder time finding the avoiding unit.
While the following list is not intended to be a be all list of possibilities,
it is intended to indicate what I mean:

1) Both stacks execute contact orders for each other, the base chance of contact
is 100% before weather considerations if neither stack have the flag set.

2) If both contact and one has the flag set, 90%.

3) if both contact and both have flag set, 80%.

4) If one contacts and no flag set, 90%.

5) If one contacts with flag set and target doesn't have flag set, 80%.

6) If one contacts without flag set and target does have flag set, 60%.

7) If one contacts with both having flag set, 50%.

In the above list, contact means either the CONTACT order or the ATTACK order.

In the case of a stack having HOSTILE set for a stack with the flag set but no
other actions are taken by either stack, the chance of success is 35%.

Someone that is attack, will automatically set this flag until they leave
the province.

There is a xx% less chance of an attacker being able to recontact a force they
attacked for another battle in the same sector based on size of defending
force and scouting abilities of attacker (flyers would make it easier to
find the defenders again) since the defenders are assumed to be trying to avoid
the original attackers and have an idea where they are now.

Some possibilities of things to add to this would be

1) Variable days ATTACKing/CONTACTing. THe more days spent trying, the better
the chances of success.

2) A stealth skill to improve chances of not being contacted (perhaps increases
chances of avoid hostile contact while improving chances of friendly contact
that is sought).

3) A RANGER skill (sub of forestry) that has the same effects as the stealth
skill in certain terrains.

4) Terrain modifiers to the chances.

5) The presence of flying/mounted troops would increase the chance of making
or avoiding contact.

The numbers above are meant to be rough to show the idea and are not intended
to necessarily be the 'official' numbers which should probably have a little
more thought given to them than I have just done.

>
>> Why 6? This seems kind of low, especially since Mt. Olympus is already civ-7.
>
>6 leaves a three province ripple effect, and some people already interpreted
>the rules as saying there was a cap at six.
>
>> I'm still kind of wary of this. I know SWEAR can be a "bad thing", but I
>> also see times when it is a "good thing".
>
>Agreed. There are definitely legitimate uses for SWEAR. Unfortunately
>it's too easy to abuse, even with restrictions in place.
>
>--
>Rich Skrenta <skrenta@pbm.com>
>
>

Chip Charnley

```--
Chip Charnley
ac217@detroit.freenet.org
ccharnle@ef0424.efhd.ford.com
My opinions are my own and do not represent anyone but myself.
```

Main Index  |  Olympia  |  Arena  |  PBM FAQ  |  Links