07-05-1999 09:46									#1
	combat and map lag Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

map lag: the time that it takes you to assemble a sufficient attack force

After discussing whether combat should favor the attacker or defender I started thinking about some games and how things were handled.

RISK: attacker can place some new armies (massing troops) each turn, he has trouble bringing other armies into the fight (you only get one move per turn). The attacker generally has to have more men (so he can leave one behind, also the number of dice). The attacker is slighly favored. So basically the game has very high map lag but it is partially counteracted by the free armies at the beggining of the turn.

Romance of the Three Kingdoms II: This is a different type of TBS game, things are done by region. In the actual combat things are done by the square on the regional combat map. Moving your armies between provinces is fairly slow. However you can typically manipulate events so that the attacker has a numerical advantage in combat. The defender has a small advantage (he starts in/closer to the forts and castles). Fairly low map lag.

civ: it is hard to mass your army quickly in any one place (except late game, then it breaks down) and the attacker has the advantage. Very high map lag.

I think it comes down to how hard it is to attack and how long it takes to get there. So if by the time you get there several production cycles have passed you will lose. If movement is swift and massing troops is simple then the defender will lose.

Throughout the game these things change too. Does it become easier or harder to mass troops as the game progresses (distace makes it harder but the increased production makes it easier)?

Also you have to consider how many civs you will likely border on each side. If you are at war you might lose your homeland so war should be profitable, otherwise it would be unlikely. However if it is too profitable people will just go on rampages constanly and never become attached to particular areas. In one versus one games you want the overall combination of factors to make combat fairly even for both players. At the very beggining of the game the defender should have a small advantage (otherwise someone will be killed in the first few turns, not a fun game) and at the very end of the game the attacker should have a small advantage (otherwise stalemates would be common). By advantage I am referring to the whole picture.

Conclusions:

a high production cycle to map lag ratio favors the defender

a high map lag to return on investment ratio favors the defender

so army mobility should be based on economic cycles and combat advantages should be based on army mobility.

	07-05-1999 12:00									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

One minor point:

In Risk, the dice heavily favor the *defender*.

1) all ties go to the defender.

2) the attacker can never roll more than 3 dice, and is therefore prevented from using the full force of his #'s in any one attack.

Personally, I think Risk is a *great* wargame.

Also, Romance of the 3K's (both of them) were *outstanding*. Koei is still the team to beat, in my mind. Sid Meier is okay, but Ghengis Khan, Napolean, that WWII pacific one -- KOEI really makes great games! Experience, leaders, labor distribution, supply and demand markets, dual modes . . . and on, and on.

P.S. -- ever played "Warsong" on the old Sega?

	07-05-1999 16:16									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

IMO one of the beauties of a whole-history game is that you move thru several different regiemes of economic payback, map lag, offense vs defence etc. No single strategy will suffice. You must be versatile as well as good at each of the sub-games ocurring in different time periods / tech levels.

Also, because of different epochs of technology in communications and transportation it is IMO Impossible in a quasi-realistic game to rule the world with primitive technology. By the time your troops are halfway around the world, General Zorg has decided He'd like to be a god-emperor too, and you're too far away to stop him .

If you like, think of Clash as a series of connected games (different games are by tech level) with very different balances etc. In the beginning economic development doesn't Do much because there's nothing to develop To (after modest investments there is nothing to invest in). In the ancient world, military conquest is the key (as it was in history), but you can only go so far with it.

In the middle ages, the military defence is supreme, driving the feudalization of many societies. There's not too much an attacker (or king trying to discipline a vassal who won't turn over the taxes) can do when they're over there in that castle. But if you bide your time... Boom cannon will bring those obnoxious walls down no problem. To rush in the feudal era would be largely to die a stupid and pointless death.

By contrast in the modern age Investment in the economy and technology are the keys. Military power flows From them.

-Mark

	30-01-2005 22:05									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: P.S. -- ever played "Warsong" on the old Sega?

Yes, I played One of the greatest strategies ever. Sorry for bumping the thread, I'll create a new one.