24-05-2002 22:23									#181
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well of course occasional fresh air and sunlight is essential for a healthy d.... um person. But the work has to be done, and someone has to do it. I'd love to help, but I'm too busy with "higher thoughts".

	24-05-2002 23:43									#182
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe It occurrs to me that whats needed still is an understanding of the combat phases and combat resolution from a procedural POV. Something on the order of Player 1 turn 1. Rally phase 2. Tactical Movement Phase a. Opportunity fire phase - defending player b. Direct fire - Player 1 c. Charge Declaration d. Melee resolution etc. Or perhaps I'm just a bit too anal. But I think it will help the coders immensely. Og

err sorry for the spamming, now back to the business at hand.

This all depends on how much interactivity is desired between players during the round. It could be a lot different if intiative are used.

The one thing that I hate about TB combat is that the first person to move gets too much of an advange all other things being equal. There has to be a good way to split up the combat so that it is more even. I realize that a entirely level playing field is impossible. Just trying to minimize the pitch.

R:PM

	25-05-2002 01:07									#183
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Wow! I started reading this thread eons ago, got caught up with real life, and came back today to finish my reading ... and wow! Lotsa reading material but it was definitly worth it! I really, really, really love the tactical system as it stands right now!

I'm joining the discussion late so i don't have any earth-shattering additions to make ... except for one point ... I refuse to work from any cellar/basement/bunker! Programmers of the world unite!

About the phases, unless I missed it, I didn't see any description that said that combat should be divided in phases. Programming-wise, splitting the combat into phases or into one big phase is the same complexity. Personally, I'd prefer to have combat in one big phase. I'd hate to have to move all stacks before being able to attack, since where I move my stacks will be related to how well the other stacks are attacking/defending.

And I second (third, fourth ...) the motion to create a new thread with the combat rules. Thataway it'll be easy to catch up for new people reading on combat.

	25-05-2002 02:03									#184
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Perhaps I misunderstood. Since I'm have no programming experience at all I assumed Ogie was simply commenting on the types of logical steps that need to be included in the combat phase and roughly when.

	25-05-2002 04:18									#185
	Put an end to popups!

Ram, programmers are on the lowest rung. I know, I used to be one. Get out while the goin's good.

	26-05-2002 01:47									#186
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Fascinating thread, fellas.

I've got a few suggestions for you.

About the leaders: Wouldn't it be cool if leaders could start dynasties and have children, who then followed in their footsteps? Each leader could have a small chance of producing an heir who would inherit some, but not all, of their mother or fathers characteristics. A leader special ability, say, 'dynasty', would mean a greatly improved chance of creating one or more heirs. This suggestion also takes some of the pain out of your best leaders dying of old age or whatever.

However, I don't like the idea of each leader having a number of risk-free battles. I remember playing Mechcommander (not a good game by any means) and feeling really desolate aftering one of my best pilots at the end of an extremely difficult mission. What was worse, though, was losing a complete rookie, during her first mission. Her scream haunts me still. I think making all leaders vulnerable, even young ones, would introduce an element of 'tragedy', which would fit into the game environment quite well.

On experience: I think that elite units and leaders should only gain experience from defeating forces as powerful or more powerful than themselves. So a supremely powerful army wouldn't gain any experience points by defeating a ragtag bundle of peasants. The peasants on the other hand, would gain a huge level of experience if they won.

	26-05-2002 02:20									#187
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Fascinating thread, fellas. On experience: I think that elite units and leaders should only gain experience from defeating forces as powerful or more powerful than themselves. So a supremely powerful army wouldn't gain any experience points by defeating a ragtag bundle of peasants. The peasants on the other hand, would gain a huge level of experience if they won.

Good idea, but I think elite units gaining less experience points against a weaker enemy is a better solution than them not gaining any.

	29-05-2002 06:19									#188
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Perhaps I misunderstood. Since I'm have no programming experience at all I assumed Ogie was simply commenting on the types of logical steps that need to be included in the combat phase and roughly when.

Spencer,

Yeah thats zactly what I meant. Need to procedurealize how the whole tactical turn is supposedc to flow so it can be coded accordingly.

My examples were meant only for illustration purposes and not as a guidelnine by any stretch of the imagination. But IMO, I think Vel has done a great job of detailing some of the mechanics of the combat and so forth, now the mechanics/procedure of t he turn need fleshing out. Again IMHO.

Og