This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: AWLS: Korea 2006
- From: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- To: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: 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