This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Marketing Xconq
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: pzgndr at hotmail dot com, <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:31:31 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Marketing Xconq
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Elijah Meeks wrote:
> Would it be feasible to create a Combat Model 2 that
> affords the designer more control over combat
> resolution?
Sure. And I remember that there was some discussion of this a few
months ago (it might have even been a thread that you started).
Some of the potential candidates for a new combat model were:
(1) Numeric superiority should confer an advantage. (As Bill
mentioned above.)
(2) Capture should not be allowed until defending occupants have
withdrawn or been destroyed.
(3) Make a distinction between point weapons and spread weapons
(bullets vs. bombs, essentially). I think Bruno Boettcher
suggested this.
> new attributes and assign them to units. This way
> someone building an armored combat simulator could
> define the attributes, "Lower Hull Front Armor",
> "Upper Hull Front Armor", "Turret Armor", and so on,
> while someone who was designing a sub game could
> define, "Stealth", "ECM", "Depth" and so on. The
One way you might be able to fake these attributes within the
existing framework would be to define unit types that serve as
transports for occupant "attribute" units. For example, an
Ironclad might be a container for a Turret. The Ironclad itself
could not fire, but the Turret could fire. The Ironclad could move
in river terrain, but the Turret could not move in any terrain
(but it would have enough ACP to fire and to enter the Ironclad,
though not necessarily to leave it). Capacity restrictions could
be used to make sure that only the correct number of Turrets could
be placed on the Ironclad.
> Boy, that went on forever, but I think it'd be worth
> it.
Interesting idea....
Regards,
Eric