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: AWLS: Korea 2006


--- Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu> wrote:
> I did some playing on the updated Korean War game
> earlier. It seems that 
> the American/S. Korean/Japanese alliance is now
> quite a bit stronger and 
> more aggressive. The N. Koreans and Chinese have a
> much tougher slog 
> than last time I played.

Try it with the Aggressive China option, where half
the Chinese military just happens to be stationed on
the PRC/DPRK border.  I find that option, along with
turning off the American support, to make for a tough
game as Japan.  Of course, the American AI doesn't
send the Nimitz in, just the surface vessels, but if I
can't figure out why, I'll station it closer, until it
finally takes advantage of it.


> One thing that I noticed is that, for some reason,
> N. Korean armor 
> cannot attack S. Korean armor, or so it seemed. Made
> it a bit of a 
> nightmare trying to contain the S. Korean armor
> without taking massive 
> infantry casualties. 

I just looked through awls-rules.g and noticed that
the following line:

(armor-types armor-types 3)

was missing from the acp-to-attack table.  I'll check
in a fix tonight.

> Aside from this 
> problem (and some issues with ZOC's being exerted by
> unseen units, which 
> is a Xconq problem, not a game module problem), the
> game seemed to be 
> quite fun.

I'm glad you liked it.  The next one will be a ground
war between Russia and China, which should pose less
problems with the AI.

Elijah


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 


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