Re: Some proposals to implement *sieges*

[Bruno Boettcher <bboett@yoda.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Stan Shebs wrote:

>    IMHO, one big fat feature missing from xconq is a way to implement
>    sieges.  In many historical periods sieges were a focal point of
Yeah, i put my vote on that feature :)

> I like this too, at least the concept.  The requirement for materials is
> not ideal, one could imagine material-less games that would still want
> to have sieges.
what about morale reduction over time? modulated by the size of the city
perhaps? thus the longer a siege lasts, the higher the chance of surrender?

> One of the underlying problems is deciding *when* a siege is supposed
> to be happening.  Should we say there's a siege when a unit is
> surrounded in all directions?  Do the surrounding units have to be of
no i am against that: imagine a fortress on a hill where only one side is
accessible, blocking this way would achieve siege, on the other hand a camp in
the steppes could only be assieged when surrounding it completely.... i think
that putting into consideration terrain types and terrain  altitude differences
would considerably complicate the whole thing... 

> particular types?  Six is a lot of units, especially since they'll
æll units that are able to attack a place should be suitable to make a
siege....

> the unit were in the same cell as the intended besieged?  Should there
for sake of visibility this shouldn't be done IMHO

> be a special type of action or task?
how about the following: if a cell near an enemy place is occupied more than
one turn, siege is automaticly declared?


But then also one of my old problems reappear: the fact that one enemy unit
could take a place filled with defending units (just had the case yesterday
evening again: 7 tanks where lost against one from the ennemy because they
stayed in a crucial city...), could at least there be a chance fo the units in
the city to escape the capture if fall of the city is imminent? especially the
fighters is hard to accept that they couldn't flee an army of tanks.... there
is already such a mecanism, i noticed: if a unit gets too much damage in a
combat it wimps out, why not the defenders of places?

And especially in the case of sieges: if the situation becomes dramatic there
should   be IMHO a chance that the occupants try a 'out-fall' (or how the heck
this is called in english :) thus  a concerted attack of all the occupants on
one occupied   cell to accomplish a break through of the ennemy lines....

And thats another point: as far as i see it, at least in standard, fights are
still unit against unit, is there a way to group units ? (X11 interface..., i
found the Formation command, but am a bit unsure on how to use...) and
to do grouped attacks (with an algorithm of the sort: comparision of
combat-strength*number-of-units):
 
It is a bit strange to loose 5 of 11 tank-units in a combat against 1 infantry
and one tank (really heroic :( ) normally i would expect those enemy units to
be hit in the ground without even noticing... and there too: until total
destruction of the ennemy, the hex is hold, couldn't there be an option that
when the defenders  are outnumbered there's a chance for the attacants to pass
a number of units through the cell?

Ok enough for now :) 
 
ciao
bboett
==============================================================
acount at erm1 dot u-strasbg dot fr or acount at earthling net 
http://erm6.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================
Unsolicited commercial email is NOT welcome at this email address
To contact me replace acount by bboett in above addresses