 |
|  |
 |
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004 time: 05:24
|
|
Perhaps there shouldn't be PBEM's in a real time stra...RTS?
To help Cataphract887 improvise...
Perhaps you give all your units, leaders, whatever, future orders...
If the enemy retreats, follow him, or if the enemy attacks, fall back, or something like that...
Also, perhaps you selectively choose all your leaders and generals from a list...each one has a different personality, and some are more likely to retreat while others are more likely to follow a routing enemy...so you wouldn't have to necessarily make the command, rather pray you have good generals...more realistic really, as I don't see the Peacekeeper citizens voting Lal in every year in his "democracy" and letting Lal control the military...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004 time: 05:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger One drives away and the other one moves into the vaccant spot. |
But this presents a problem...what if both rovers are impact rover?
Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it...
Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing...
Ultimately, I think it is rather absurd to try and play a real-time game of any sort by PBEM...it just doesn't work...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chaos Theory

|
 |
Missouri / Misery; CC
Oct 2002 time: 04:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Commy
But this presents a problem...what if both rovers are impact rover?
Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it...
|
The concepts of attacker and defender would need to be revised. Logically, both are the attacker since both would shoot at each other, and both are the defender, since both are being shot. Neither is pinned down, or trying to protect any territory, they're just shooting at each other in the open.
quote:
Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing...
|
If the players are being that fickle about their rovers' movements, then no, but if player A wants to advance or claim territory, then he can't dance with player B's rover like that.
quote:
Ultimately, I think it is rather absurd to try and play a real-time game of any sort by PBEM...it just doesn't work... |
These issues are pertinent to truly simultaneous turns as well, and are soluble.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Commy
Let's say that Rover A is ordered to attack Rover B. Rover B is ordered to retreat. Both are 4-1-2 units, so if Rover B retreated, and Rover A moved in to the vacant spot, then Rover A could easily be attacked by Rover B, with odds against it... |
Since all combats are resolved simultaneously - or else this won't work - Rover A won't be attacked by Rover B next turn.
quote: Originally posted by Commy
Even if say, the next turn, player A had his rover retreat back to the original square, and Rover B this time moved into the vacant square, the game isn't really progressing... |
Why? Rover A could attack Rover B again, or player B moves his rover with a defender, etc.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|