Re: Mailing List Split

[Andrae Muys <a dot muys at mailbox dot uq dot edu dot au>]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Stan Shebs wrote:

> We've had some really good discussions lately, and there are a bunch
> of additional topics to bring up.  In particular, I'd like to propose
> GDL and game changes before actually making them, so everybody knows
> what is going on.  However, that will increase the traffic on this

Regarding GDL.  I keep trying to fix the Napoleonic rule set, but keep
running into problems.  I do have some questions regarding the design of
GDL.

1) Who thought of making GDL declarative?  Kudos, an excelent choice -- I
love the syntax.  It makes it easy to code new rules.

2) Why are HP, AP, and Materials treated differently?  Conceptually aren't
HP and AP just specialised Materials?

3) The lack of unit orientation makes tactical and operational level game
development prior to 20th century infantry battles very difficult.

4) Is it possible to elaberate on ZOC sizes, and effects?

5) How good is the computer at automating PLAYER actions?  (ie, can supply
be automated for the player?)

Ok, my concept for a Napoleonic period ruleset (so you can understand the
reasons for my questions) is:

Most of the battles fought in this period had very few casualties
inflicted on either side during the battle itself.  Even the losing side
rarely suffered more then 10-20% losses, if the loses were higher they
were invariably the result of a determined pursuit post-battle, or
phyisical terrain acted to intensify the fighting/result (rivers, bridges
collapsing, sieges, etc).  The decision was made not by killing the enemy
but by dispersing the enemy formations and (at a higher level) disrupting
command/control.

To represent this I wanted a focus on `cohesion' rather then numerical
strength.  Combat, Manuvere, Formation Changes, and the presense of enemy
units nearby (especially cavary/guards) ie. ZOC's, would all attrit
`cohesion'.  Time, Leaders, and the presense of friendly units nearby
(especially cavarly/guards) would all increase the `cohesion'.

The effect of combat would be cohesion, with a compulsorary unit change to
a `disordered' type in the case that cohesion is exausted.  Still should a
leader rally (transfer cohesion) the unit it could be reconsituted minus
any losses it had suffered while it was dissordered (hopefully with an
associated loss in max-cohesion).

Leaders would produce cohesion as a function of their skill, and should
transfer that cohesion to deficient units automatically, as should
veteran/elite/hvy cavary units that have excess cohesion.

Finally, this is Napoleonic warfare, formations and facing are vitally
important.  These units aren't supposed to be blobs, rather they are
dressed lines, and columns, and squares.  Even the skirmishers operate in
a loose formation.

Note that Line Cavary wouldn't provide the cohesion bonus, only Hvy and
Armoured Cavary would do that, providing a useful distinction between the
two classes that is often lost.

I also have some ideas regarding how to combine this with a strategic game
on the same map, but that can come later.

Andrae Muys

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Andrae Muys <andrae@humbug.org.au> "Never ascribe to malice that which is
Senior IT Officer                   adequately explained by incompetence."
The Centre for Magnetic Resonance                   -Napoleon Bonaparte
The University of Queensland