From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13794 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2003 18:40:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13786 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 18:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp800.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.179) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 18:40:48 -0000 Received: from adsl-64-175-251-31.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net (HELO odysseus.peterslan) (sampln@sbcglobal.net@64.175.251.31 with plain) by smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 18:40:45 -0000 Subject: New combat model: d20? (was: Re: Marketing Xconq) From: Lincoln Peters To: Elijah Meeks Cc: Xconq list In-Reply-To: <20031117223812.82989.qmail@web13104.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031117223812.82989.qmail@web13104.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1069180834.29637.102416.camel@odysseus.peterslan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:41:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00768.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 14:38, Elijah Meeks wrote: > "The other is some way of providing multiple unit > attacks and standard combat results tables based on > odds. Like three units against one getting 3-1 odds, > or whatever when other factors are computed, and a > "die roll" resolves the combat all at one time. The > current combat models do not lend themselves to doing > this well. So maybe with the newer Xconq programmers > on the list now, someone can think about addressing > these things." > > I consider myself saavy enough to put together an > interesting combat model, but not so saavy as to be > able to write it and bug-check it within Xconq itself. > Would it be feasible to create a Combat Model 2 that > affords the designer more control over combat > resolution? You could set it up as follows: > > Designer-Defined attributes for units. > In the same way that Combat Model 1 has Attack and > Defense for units, except the designer could define > new attributes and assign them to units. This way > someone building an armored combat simulator could > define the attributes, "Lower Hull Front Armor", > "Upper Hull Front Armor", "Turret Armor", and so on, > while someone who was designing a sub game could > define, "Stealth", "ECM", "Depth" and so on. The > attributes themselves do nothing, except what the > designer defines them to do in the next step: > > Designer-Defined Combat Resolution. > With the ability to define various sets of attributes, > we could then use simple (And more accessible for > relative non-programmers such as myself) logic to > define how hits are determined and how damage is > applied. The simplest way to do this is to have a > hardwired To-Hit system (Like Combat Model 1) and then > have an Attribute-To-Attack-Attribute table that > defines which attributes are used to plug into the > system, as well as an Attribute-To-Damage table that > does the same for damage. With something like the > tank model, you could introduce a > Attribute-Chance-To-Defend table with which you could > simulate a little more complexity. Even better would > be to allow the designer to punch up the algorythm > himself, but I think I remember bringing this up and > being told that we wanted to limit the amount of > complex code in .g files. It occurs to me that this somewhat resembles the d20 combat model used by Dungeons and Dragons (3rd edition and later; earlier editions use a very different model). Every character (or unit) has a base Armor Class and Attack bonus. For one unit to hit another, the attacker rolls a 20-sided die, adds the Attack bonus, and if the resulting number equals or exceeds the defender's Armor Class, the attack hits and does damage. These may be hard-coded (e.g. Armor Class 10, Attack bonus +1), but there are countless things that could alter them. For example, a suit of chain mail armor improves Armor Class by 5 points (reducing the chance of being hit by roughly 25%), a masterwork longsword would improve the Attack bonus by 1 (hit chance increases by about 5%), and the Two-weapon Fighting feat(s) can potentially double the character's number of attacks per round. Would this fit what you're describing? In the case of tanks and/or subs, the attributes you describe might work out as follows: Lower Hull Front Armor: +2 Armor Class Upper Hull Front Armor: +6 Armor Class Turret Armor: +1 Armor Class Stealth: +4 Attack vs. non-"Stealth" units Depth: +4 Armor Class vs. non-"Depth" units Some other possible combat rules (that would require far more than just a new combat model) might be: Lower Hull Front Armor: Damage reduction 4 vs. infantry (i.e. any damage inflicted by infantry is instantly reduced by 4, minimum 0) Upper Hull Front Armor: Additional +4 Armor Class to cockpit* Turret Armor: Additional +6 Armor Class vs. "Disarm" attacks Stealth: A successful surprise attack inflicts double damage. ECM: A successful attack imposes -2 on the defender's Attack Depth: +4 to avoid being detected (Hide and Move Silently checks) * Armor class bonuses to specific parts of the unit only come into play when an opponent makes a called shot to that part of the unit (e.g a called shot to the cockpit would be a difficult shot (-8 to Arrack), but it would instantly kill the unit if successful). I've looked at the licensing agreement for the d20 system (used by D&D 3rd edition and later, as well as a few other RPG's), and it looks like we could incorporate it into Xconq as a third combat model if we wanted to. However, I am not a lawyer, and the language used in the licenses is rather weird (although not much more so than Microsoft license agreements). The URL's for the license agreements are: Open Gaming License: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf d20 System License: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20licensev5.rtf