Re: Just say no to bungee paratroopers.

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Hans Ronne wrote:

> I would concur. Even in non-paratrooper games, it makes sense for a
> capturing unit to move inside. Right now, it will wait outside for one turn
> or even move away, until the capture task has been changed to an occupy
> task. I've been planning to improve how the AI handles such cases. A lot
> can happen in one turn ...

Are we talking about teaching the AI to do something or are we talking 
about an implicit action. I was under the impression that we were 
talking about the latter and not necessarily the former.

As I mentioned to Henry off-list, I am not sure that it is wise to 
impose a certain action "granularity" or time scale on game designers. 
Some games may dictate the kind of implicit action we are talking about, 
but others may not. I am not sure that capture always implies a forceful 
overrun followed by garrisoning. It may imply that the defender felt 
forced into surrender by the immediate presence of the capturing unit 
(independent of surrender chances).

> The key question is if captures (or attacks) from inside transports should
> be allowed at all. In principle, I think not. Paratroopers should jump into
> an empty cell, then attack on the ground from there. Jumping on top of
> enemy positions is suicide, as several examples from history show, so it
> should not be supported as a viable attack mode in Xconq.

That is one perspective. However, a game with a somewhat different time 
scale and different take on actions may be better served by having, say, 
the troops leave a helicopter, attempt capture, and then get back on the 
helicopter all as part of the capture action.

Here again, I think we can ultimately be better served by a modular 
combat system that gives us the flexibility of turning on or off such 
behavior, instead of hacking an entire combat model and telling everyone 
that they have to do things the same way.

Eric