This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: More Feedback on AWLS: Korea 2006


Elijah Meeks wrote:

I just tested this, and even if your city is occupied,
it should be able to produce ground units, because
places have a terrain size of 12, while units have a
terrain size of 50 (The unit, rather than being placed
in the city, would be placed in the same hex but
outside the city).

I wasn't seeing this, but maybe the cities were just out of materials. Those poor N. Koreans, you know....


The problem that I see with this is in the
creation of new naval units, which need to be placed
in the city since, obviously, they can't go on the
ground.

Right. And that was one of the worst cases. N. Korea only has one port city, and the moment a Chinese unit enters it that port is lost for naval (read, coastal submarine :-) production. And that somewhat diminishes N. Korea's ability to put S. Korean, Japanese, and American tonnage at the bottom of the Sea of Japan and E. China Sea.


I'm going to create wrecked-type table entries for
sub-ship combat, to represent that a sub isn't
fighting a carrier air wing when it hits a carrier
group.  I've already done this with air wings and adns
in regard to damage from armor and infantry, (I'm not
sure if the most recent check-in has this, though).

Sounds like a plan. Alternatively, you might be able to make an actual carrier air wing unit that can occupy carrier groups.


There is, though, a method to this.  Trying to sink
the USS Kitty Hawk with a diesel sub is a poor bet at
best.

Is there some implicit ASW capabilities in the group, like a screen of picket ships or maybe some ASW choppers on the carrier's deck?


Even then, I think that might give an added detection boost against subs (choppers trawling sonar cans in the water, etc...), but if the sub does manage to get in and strike first, then what?

And, finally, it seems that the big American
submarines can very easily dispatch coastal subs even if the coastal subs are
striking first. (Perhaps the sub counterattack modifiers should be
lowered to something less than 100% in the 'counterattack' table.)


I think the US side has too many nuclear subs in
theatre. But, again, those greenwater fleets that the
Koreans, Japanese and Chinese have are outclassed by
their nuclear counterparts. It's part of the design
that an American nuclear submarine outclasses a
diesel-electric,

Sure. I understand that. The nuclear sub should be tougher and meaner. I'm not saying that the little diesel boat should be able to run up and blow it away in one or two pops, but the little sub shouldn't necessarily be guaranteed to die if it gets first strike, either.


The other possibility is to split up surface and
carrier groups, which are meant to represent a
collection of ships, and implement Destroyer
Squadrons, Cruisers and make the Carrier Air Wing a
seperate unit transported by Carriers,

I think the Carrier Air Wing is a good idea. It would decouple two different aspects of the present Carrier Group units, and save you from having to make a bunch more special wrecked types based on who does the killing.


which gives you
a chance of sneaking your coastal sub through the
fleet and sinking (Or critically damaging) that damned
Kitty Hawk yourself.

Actually, I'm pretty much pro-Kitty Hawk, except when I'm playing "Kim Jung Il's advocate" (N. Korea is the default first side). Hopefully, I'll be able to make some time to play as some of the other sides later on.


It would be cool if the Russians were in the game. Then I could defend that one chunk of land on the Amur river (IIRC) that they and the Chinese skirmished over a few decades ago.

It'd make more sense, because as
it stands there's only one carrier tech, which
theoretically improves both fighters and the carrier
itself, as well as better simulating battle, which
could wipe out a carrier air wing while leaving the
vessel itself unscathed (Right now Air Defense
Networks damage carriers, somewhat silly in certain
situations).  But, I have a feeling the AI wouldn't
deal so well with that.

It might do okay with it, if you allow carriers to produce carrier air wings over time.


them a fire attack that consumed 'Cruise missile'
materials, but the AI doesn't like a unit that
utilizes both Attack and Fire.

Hmmm... That seems odd. It should do okay in that situation. I guess I will have to make a new Windows installer, so that you can see whether Hans' victim finder and hit-unit improvements help things any.


One more thing that I forgot to mention earlier. It seems that the N. Korean cities can produce Carrier Groups but not Air Wings. That strikes me as a bit odd.

Eric


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]