Need opinions on Blitzing for complex maps (politics, etc)

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

Need opinions on Blitzing for complex maps (politics, etc)

Veqryn
Administrator
Ok, so I would like to hear some opinions on how blitzing should work (rules) for complex maps with politics, etc.

This is not a vote, and this is also not an opportunity to make large feature suggestions, etc.
We will not be coding any "options" into this, it will be a blanket rule that applies to everyone and everything.

We will be going with whatever rule:
1. Easiest to code and maintain in the future
2. Most common sense
3. Most intuitive
4. Most consistent
5. Applies to all maps and all rules sets and all players
6. There should not be any difference between doing all your moves at once, and two-stepping your units (move them, then move them again)

Why am I making this?
Axis and Allies rules do not cover situations where units begin their turn (combat move phase) on enemy soil.
This may seem weird, but it is possible in FFA games that implement politics, and also possible with triggers.

Ok, here are the situations we need to cover (all combinations of below):

* You have mix of different units that all begin their turn in an enemy owned territory. So you might have all blitzing units and non-blitzing units, and units with anywhere from zero to 3 movement.

$ The enemy territory can be empty, or can have units in it

# The enemy territory might not have any territory effects, or might have the no-blitz-allowed effect.

@ There are surrounding friendly, neutral, and enemy territories, some of which are empty and some of which have units in them.  Each of these territories then connects to more friendly, neutral, and enemy territories that might or might not have units in them.


So for example, if you have:
Any units starting in an enemy territory that has enemy units in it.
The rules right now are:
1. You can move (retreat) to a friendly or neutral territory, without fighting or conquering anything.
2. You can stay in the enemy territory to do battle.
3. You can not move further into enemy territory with any of your units (blitz or non-blitz).
4. You can move to a friendly or neutral territory and then into a enemy territories. If the enemy territories are empty that will be conquered (and if your units can blitz they will blitz), and if the territories have units then they will stop to do battle.

I think everyone agrees with the above.


Another example, this one currently under contention from several people including myself:

You have blitzable and non-blitzable units starting in an enemy territory that has no units in it.
The rules right now (or at least how I imagined them, barring any bugs):
1. You can move (retreat) to a friendly or neutral territory.  If your units have blitz they should conquer the territory as they leave.  If they do not have blitz they will not conquer the territory.
2. You can stay in the enemy territory to conquer it (like with non-blitz units).
3. You can not move further into enemy territory with your non-blitz units.  However you can move further with your blitz units.  Your blitz units will conquer the territory on the way out.
4. You can move to a friendly or neutral territory and then into a enemy territories. If the enemy territories are empty that will be conquered (and if your units can blitz they will blitz), and if the territories have units then they will stop to do battle.  Your blitz units will conquer the territory on the way out of the original territory.


Some other opinions on the above:
^ Beginning in an empty enemy territory should have it conquered at the start of combat-move, without any affect on the units in the territory (no loss of movement, etc)
^ Beginning in an empty enemy territory should have it conquered at the start of combat-move ONLY if you have a blitzable unit in the territory, without any affect on the units in the territory (no loss of movement, etc)
^ Moving out of an empty enemy territory with a blitzable unit should not conquer it

Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need opinions on Blitzing for complex maps (politics, etc)

panguitch
Veqryn wrote
I think everyone agrees with the above [contested territory has enemy troops].
I agree, this is how it works and it's good.

Veqryn wrote
[Contested terr. has no enemy units]
1. You can move (retreat) to a friendly or neutral territory.  If your units have blitz they should conquer the territory as they leave.  If they do not have blitz they will not conquer the territory.
This is not exactly how it currently works. Three differences:

1. The contested territory is not conquered when a blitz unit retreats from it to a friendly. It is only conquered if units remain until after combat move, or if a blitz unit advances from it to another enemy territory.

2. Also, interestingly, once a blitz unit advances to another enemy territory and the original contested territory is thereby conquered, now non-blitz units can also advance to the next enemy territory, following the blitz unit. As mentioned in the other thread, this is due to a deeper issue and likely won't be resolved.

3. Blitz units can retreat to a friendly territory and then strike a different enemy territory. If they do this in one step, both the original contested territory and the second enemy territory are captured. If they do this in two steps (retreat to allied then attack second terr.) the original contested territory is not captured.

Video showing these three situations: http://screencast.com/t/xIvlXywBQ

That's how it works right now, and I'm mostly ok with it. For example, my opinion is that number 1 is ok. Even a blitz unit should only conquer a contested territory if it's part of its overall attack movement (moving on to attack another territory). It should not conquer a contested territory that it starts in but retreats from. To be honest, I don't feel strongly, but I don't see any reason to change it so that a blitz unit conquers while retreating.

Fixing number 2 is not on the table, so we live with it.

Number 3 is weird. If it's the same issue as number 2, fine, can't be fixed. If not, it would be nice to make it more consistent, so that the number of steps don't matter. And as with number 1, my preference is that regardless of whether it's a one- or two-step move, the original contested territory should not be conquered. It was retreated from, not blitzed through.

Also, I do not like the idea of changing it so empty contested territories are auto-captured at the start of combat movement. This would mean that if there's a politics change, you're essentially giving that territory to the new owner without them having to do anything (either stay through to battle phase or blitz through it). Territory control should only change through editing, through triggers, through battle, or when blitzed through.

Greyhawk Wars
TripleA in the original Dungeons & Dragons world

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Need opinions on Blitzing for complex maps (politics, etc)

Eschelon
OK, so I was trying to figure out some way to 'park' a unit, forcing it to spend a movement point to 'conquer' the contested territory, with all other units in that territory not having to do so, and then it occured to me, yeah do this the easy way.

Territories should not be automatically conquered at the start of a combat move.  One unit must either move into the territory during the combat move, or remain in the territory until the end of combat move, in order to conquer said territory.

For fast/blitzing units, they could move into/conquer as appropriate an adjacent territory, then move back into the original territory to conquer it (or move on to some other territory, leaving the 'contested' territory unclaimed).

Also, a fast/blitzing unit in an adjacent territory could move through the contested territory as it's first move, conquer the territory, then move on to another territory.  The units that start in the contested territory could essentially move using their full Movement at that point.

The reason I don't have a problem with the above scenario is that it allows for 'breakout' situations, where units in constested territories have 'breached' the front lines, but aren't bothering to secure their 'point of breach'.  This also encourages the use of more cheap units for 'blitz blocking' on the defender's part.

I could see a variation of this in a two sided affair with multiple players.  I.E. your ally moves in, destroys the enemy units, but is unable to capture the territory with his own units.  So the territory remains 'contested' until such point as the player with the units in the contested territory takes his turn, at which point he needs to either have a unit stay, or move a unit into the territory to conquer it.

In 'fight to the death during combat or retreat' maps, which is essentially most TripleA maps, as I remember, the attacker fights all of his enemies, regardless of which player they are, until all enemies are eliminated or the attacker dies/retreats.  BUT, if you've decided to use the 'limited number of combat rounds per battle' option, then this contested issue becomes a much bigger deal, as both sides may have units in the territory at the end of the combat phase, unless the attackers are forced to retreat after the last round.

In those maps where there are a limited number of battle rounds per battle, I really don't have an issue with units trying to 'blow through' enemy lines over multiple turns.  This encourages the defender to have a second line of defense (to prevent blitzing), and the defender can always 'chase' the attackers that are attempting to blow past their lines.  Of course, fast moving attackers may simply outrun the defenders, but I like this as it presents a completely different set of tactical challenges than with simple 'fight to the death' maps.

Said above situation would NOT apply to WWI 'Trench Warfare' Maps.  WWI had a lot of static lines which neither side was able to get past.

Or, and this would be a MAJOR change, you could introduce a 'trench' unit, which is infrastructure, that blocks blitzing, and does not allow units to move past it until it is captured.  Yeah, I don't see anyone wanting to code 'trenches' at this time (too much else to focus on).