From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15727 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2004 02:40:39 -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 15719 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2004 02:40:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web13124.mail.yahoo.com) (216.136.174.142) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Jul 2004 02:40:38 -0000 Message-ID: <20040713024037.22269.qmail@web13124.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.170.222.55] by web13124.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:40:37 PDT Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 03:48:00 -0000 From: Elijah Meeks Subject: Re: More Feedback on AWLS: Korea 2006 To: Eric McDonald Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <40F34283.5040202@phy.cmich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00724.txt.bz2 > 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