Re: Marketing Xconq

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

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Elijah Meeks wrote:

>   Would it be feasible to create a Combat Model 2 that
> affords the designer more control over combat
> resolution?  

Sure. And I remember that there was some discussion of this a few 
months ago (it might have even been a thread that you started). 
Some of the potential candidates for a new combat model were:
(1) Numeric superiority should confer an advantage. (As Bill 
mentioned above.)
(2) Capture should not be allowed until defending occupants have 
withdrawn or been destroyed.
(3) Make a distinction between point weapons and spread weapons 
(bullets vs. bombs, essentially). I think Bruno Boettcher  
suggested this.

> 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

One way you might be able to fake these attributes within the 
existing framework would be to define unit types that serve as 
transports for occupant "attribute" units. For example, an 
Ironclad might be a container for a Turret. The Ironclad itself 
could not fire, but the Turret could fire. The Ironclad could move 
in river terrain, but the Turret could not move in any terrain 
(but it would have enough ACP to fire and to enter the Ironclad, 
though not necessarily to leave it). Capacity restrictions could 
be used to make sure that only the correct number of Turrets could 
be placed on the Ironclad. 

> Boy, that went on forever, but I think it'd be worth
> it.

Interesting idea....

  Regards,
   Eric