Re: More Feedback on AWLS: Korea 2006

[Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>]

> One of the most annoying things that I am
> encountering now is Chinese 
> units being garrisoned in N. Korean cities by the
> Chinese AI. This 
> prevents the N. Korea player from producing anything
> since the 
> capacities of cities seem to be 1. Perhaps they
> could be made to be 
> larger; even 2 would be a big improvement as long as
> the damn Chinese 
> don't hog both slots (set the 'ai-war-garrison' at
> 1) and actually let 
> their ally produce something. I would actually
> garrison the cities with 
> N. Korean forces if they had a greater capacity.

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'm loathe to have more than one
unit in a place, because of how XConq handles occupant
combat.  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.


> Also, the Kitty Hawk's improved carrier group seems
> to be pretty strong. 
> I had a N. Korean coastal sub blasting it with
> torpedo after torpedo, 
> but it didn't seem to be getting any weaker.

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).

There is, though, a method to this.  Trying to sink
the USS Kitty Hawk with a diesel sub is a poor bet at
best.
 
> 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, but I think you're right, I've never
seen a nuclear sub sunk by one, and that should happen
occasionally.  I'd prefer that XConq allowed dice
larger than 13, because I'd give those coastal subs a
1d71-20 damage against all naval vessels, to represent
the very real possibility (Though improbable) of
scoring a critical hit on a capital ship.

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

> When I played the N. 
> Korean side, I had a problem with the American subs
> coming up and 
> attacking my one port city (with cruise missiles
> presumably, even though 
> those would probably be classified as firing), and I
> really couldn't do 
> a whole lot about it.

That, to misquote Microsoft, is not a feature, but a
bug.  The subs in the game right now are all attack
subs, no boomers, so they should only be able to
attack naval units.  I'll make sure to fix it.

I'm implementing rules for nuclear weapons right now
(As an optional rule), which'll include the
introduction of missile subs, but I figured that
cruise missiles weren't militarily effective enough to
justify the trouble of modelling them.  I thought
about doing so with subs and surface fleets, giving
them a fire attack that consumed 'Cruise missile'
materials, but the AI doesn't like a unit that
utilizes both Attack and Fire.  The other option would
be to create a 'Cruise Missile Volley' unit that ships
could carry, but I find the inclusion of more than
four units in a hex or as occupants to be
aesthetically displeasing.




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail