Contested Territories

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Contested Territories

m3tan
Has anyone devised a way to prevent combat in contested territories? Right now the game engine forces you to attack if you remain in a contested territory that you were originally the defender in the previous player's turn.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

Cernel
Aside from really major hacks, no.

The current system of limited combat rounds doesn't really make any actual sense, cause it's just swapping attacker and defender each time, with no considerations to territory ownership, or who is the one actually defending his own territory at all.

I would say it would make some sense if the map would be an operational level sort of no mans land of crazed out dinosaurs fighting each other, and both sides have same attack and defence values for all.

How it works in maps like Civil War is just wrong, and sort of silly.

Still, you can recreate a system similar to attack / defence differences using supports given to a caputrable unit present in all territories (which is still a bit hacky).

Or you can assure to have a relevant enough quantity of immobile infrastructures giving support (Civil War does this to some extent).

At the extreme, you can have defence 0 for everyone, and just influence attack values; so that it will be like the defender shoot on their turn, instead of right after the attacker, unless they decide to leave. For example, if all infantry have attack 1 and defence 0, and in all territories there is a capturable unit that gives +1 attack to 10000 attacking own infantry units, then you have infantry sort of attacking at 1 and defending at 2, except that you have to wait your turn for "defending".

Obviously, good luck battlecalculating that... To make the previous example sort of battlecalculable (in a truly hacky way), you could have infantry at attack 1 and defence 2, and the capturable unit gives -2 defence to own, allied and enemy alike, plus also giving the +1 attack to own.

Or you can use the capturable unit in each territory to manage a sensible attack / defence system in various other more or less hacky ways.

A problem with such sorth of weird things is that you have to remeber each time to add the territory unit to the defender in the battlecalculator, which is annoying.

Also remember that only the attacker receives support, while any allies receive it in defence.

So, no; you can't have a sensible combat round limit system working in a clean way.

At the end, the TA limited battle rounds system is not really something seriously devised, but merely the aftermath of an aborted attempt to clone someone else's lousy game; so you can't expect much sense out of it.

Good luck! Hope to see how you worked it out soon!
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

m3tan
It's somewhat discouraging because I'm tantalizingly close to working out a proper wargame combat system. Right now I've incorporated the following elements:

- One round of combat preceded by one round of air combat.
- Tanks are targeted by "AA fire" from other tanks and AT capable units.
- Full terrain and variable weather.
- Strict stacking limits for land and air based on territory.
- Rail movement for units that don't attack.
- Penalty for all units not in supply.
- One hit point corps level and two hit point repairable army level units.
- Exploitation phase for tanks and fast units that win battles in one round.

This is the one issue I can't solve. The best I've come up with is an invisible infrastructure unit that flips all the attack and defense values so that it is as if the player owning the area is always the defender. This makes the concept of a counterattack nonexistent. Also it doesn't do anything to slow attrition rates which are still abnormally high with all the forced rounds of combat. I wonder how hard it would be to allow for optional land combat much the same as naval combat is optional right now...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

crazy_german
How large are your planned territories? If you plan to have many territories and enough area to maneuver, I think you could just force the defender to "retreat" to another territory if they don't want to be the attacker. This is currently the best representation of the much requested defender retreat feature, it will make the game much more realistic and accurate in many ways.

You consider starting a single thread for your map, rather than splitting questions and teaser details around the few threads that you have.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

Zim Xero
In reply to this post by m3tan
You could use a trigger at the start of every combat round... that creates a kamikaze unit in every territory which is not owned by a player (except sea), and have the kamikaze unit give +1 defense, -1 attack to allied units.  This would be a lot of under-the-scenes work, but would result in less casualties deriving from contested battles.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

m3tan
In reply to this post by crazy_german
crazy_german wrote
How large are your planned territories? If you plan to have many territories and enough area to maneuver, I think you could just force the defender to "retreat" to another territory if they don't want to be the attacker. This is currently the best representation of the much requested defender retreat feature, it will make the game much more realistic and accurate in many ways.
The territories are about 200 miles across. Ex. France is 7 territories, Belgium, Netherlands 1 ea. That's not enough territories to justify defender retreats, although I did consider it. I think I'd need about double the areas for it to make sense.
crazy_german wrote
You consider starting a single thread for your map, rather than splitting questions and teaser details around the few threads that you have.
That was never my intent. I was asking questions as they came up. 3 weeks ago I started as a complete novice but many hours in now and I'm much more versed on what can and can't be done. I don't have a playable alpha yet but I should be able to create a game thread in about a week.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contested Territories

Cernel
On this scope, I would suggest having Belgium split in 2, with the southern part comprising also Luxembourg, to represent going that way, instead of via the coastline.

I mean something like this:

History plays dice