Re: Game Idea

[Jermin <melkiorgn at yahoo dot fr>]

--- Stan Shebs <shebs@shebs.cnchost.com> wrote:

> Since it's near-future, military hardware will
> be similar to today's.
> > 
> > If research could improve movement speed, why
> > could it not improve also fighting tools ? I'm
> > refering to games (RPG) like Shadowrun and
> > Cyberpunk. Both look at the future with a new
range
> > of weapons, from bullet- to beam-weapons,
including
> > gas weapons and also combat drugs.
> 
> Xconq's model would start to break down a bit if,
> say, all soldiers had individual flying packs, or
> instant regeneration, or personal teleportation
> devices. 
> The things you're talking about - translated into
net
> effect on division-sized units - would make sense
> though.

I'm convinced the model cannot come down to such a
level of details. I would thought of the new military
technology as "special units" to which one can alter
already existing units.
Examples are better for me to explain.
Technology : laser
Technology : microcristallography
Both are prerequisites for the technology :
laser-beam units
If the materials supplies include ores or jewels, we
could then add a possibility for an already existing
"infantry unit".
"Train as beam engineers."
This would alter the type of the unit from "infantry"
to "laser-beam units".

I think of it a bit like unit-improvement in CivII.
One can improve his Musketeers to Riflement when the
right technology become available. It simply cost some
money to do that (or the right Wonder Leonardo da
Vinci
Workshop).
> 
> Total Annihilation postulates jump gates on
> planetary surfaces, a clever way to take space out
of
> the picture..

The idea pleases me well. I didn't play that game but
the concept is good.
 
> > If you want to include combined arms fighting
> > ability, then the stacking limit of each cell
> > should increase to allow many different units to
> > fight together.
> 
> That's a toughie.  Big stacks are harder to play...
> 
> It occurs to me that we could introduce a force
> composition action, where players glue several units
> into single composite, similar to TOAW's unit setup
> but done on the fly.  So you get to make a kick-ass
> RDF that can go anywhere and do anything, but you
> can break it down again if you need the individual
> units to go on separate missions.

I thought of that not to allow the jack-of-all-trades
unit to go around and do all the job alone.

I read in the GDL design guide that a multiple-part
unit can be created. This features is used to enable
ship task force.
Couldn't we use it for creating "combined arms" unit.
You glue together an infantry unit and an armor unit.
The result is then an "infantry-armor" combined arms
unit.
Each such unit has some advantages and some flaws.
Combined arms unit are slower to act because of the
thwo-heads hierachy. They are more vulnerable to
artillery because of the concentration of troops in
one place. But they are better at fight against
certain
targets.
Examples :
infantry-armor are good at fighting infantry.
infantry-armor are good at fighting anti-tank weapons.

Or you allow only one unit of many types to be in a
cell, example one infantry, one armor, one artillery,
and you run through the cell stack to know which units
are present and have some acp-points left.  Everytime
one unit of the cell attack an adjacent cell, you can
add some odds to the fight because of certain
combinaison.
> 
> This is recently added actually - look at the
> "Collect" action while running ancient.g.  You can
> click on the location from which to collect, a la
> *arcraft or AoE.
> There's also per-side treasury to go along with
that.

I ought to play this one. Thanks for the advice.

> Sounds like you're halfway there already!  I like
the > idea of having the AI choose its focus, then
adjust
> research balance based on that.

The idea for research could be extended to creation
costs. The global table defines cost as a general
basis
then each player has got an adjustement table,
specific
to him. This could enable each side to have edges and
flaws.
Examples :
Every sides can train riflemen, spies, engineers,
priests.
The "integrist" side has the following creation costs
adjustement (in %):
riflemen (125) spies (75) engineers (150) priests (50)
The "lurker" side :
riflemen (150) spies (50) engineers (75) priests (125)
The "techno" side :
riflemen (125) spies (75) engineers (50) priests (150)
The "sledgehammer" side :
riflement (50) spies (150) engineers (125) priests
(75)

> Stan

Jean-Luc
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr