Some positions should be more defensible than others, or special type of terrain should not simply block movement or allow one way. This would be true for walls, too.
So, if we wanted to similate Hadrian's crossing of the Alps, then perhaps if someone attacks over the mountains in a map, it can be configured that the attacker only has up to two dice, or that the defender gains a third, depending on the situation or mapmaker's choice. So Hannibal can still cross the Alps, but boom! He takes heavy casualties in the process.
This would no doubt require some extensive modification of the engine, I think, but I thought it would be an interesting idea. (Did we have to modify the engine for embassies?)
The other thing is infrastructure like railroads or highways. This wouldn't require any engine modification at all, but basically regions along a railroad or a highway would be able to share borders with more regions along that highway it isn't directly connected to, except for critical points...also, maybe the region would only be able to attack other regions only the equivalent of two regions away, so access doesn't have to extend down the entire line.
Attacks along a major highway, or if bypassing nations, then there could be combat modifiers for that too. For example, a travelling army bypassing another region would be easier to ambush.
(I think this occurred regularly during the Chinese Warring States Era - states would try to attack another state not a firm part of their borders and would try to bypass another state. Ie. Qin tried to attack Hua, bypassing Jin but got ambushed by Jin on the way back.)
infrastructure and combat modifiers
Moderator: Cartographers
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
infrastructure and combat modifiers
Last edited by Comrade on Sat May 27, 2006 2:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It is an interesting idea to be certain, not sure who would agree with you, I'm all for new exciting ideas like I'm sure a lot of people are.
The engine wasn't modified for embassies, they were simply put in a continent on their own with the other continent so if you held the continent and the embassy you got 2 armies.
The engine wasn't modified for embassies, they were simply put in a continent on their own with the other continent so if you held the continent and the embassy you got 2 armies.
-
AndyDufresne
- Posts: 24935
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
- Contact:
---The idea of certain points being strongholds has been raised before. I think one major drawback to it all, is that certain areas would become 'fortresses', nearly impossible to take, and if someone kept building up an army there, could be an extreme advantage.
---Another drawback would be the coding required.
--Andy
---Another drawback would be the coding required.
--Andy
Oops! I forgot about the other half of my intention in raising this post. I have edited the header post accordingly.
But it would basically be the advantage of an extra dice - if one took the rest of the map then would eventually win. Such a position would basically be a "last stand" or a rallying point against a superpower...I mean, how are we supposed to play out the Battle of Thermopylae without a defensive point?
Also, it could be defensive in one direction, and not the other.
In the case of Thermopylae, the Persians attacking the Spartans (and their allied Thespians) would perhaps get slaughtered by them until they discover that other secret passage and manage to attack their defensive point from behind! (And thus not losing an attack die anymore.)
I think one major drawback to it all, is that certain areas would become 'fortresses', nearly impossible to take, and if someone kept building up an army there, could be an extreme advantage.
But it would basically be the advantage of an extra dice - if one took the rest of the map then would eventually win. Such a position would basically be a "last stand" or a rallying point against a superpower...I mean, how are we supposed to play out the Battle of Thermopylae without a defensive point?
Also, it could be defensive in one direction, and not the other.
In the case of Thermopylae, the Persians attacking the Spartans (and their allied Thespians) would perhaps get slaughtered by them until they discover that other secret passage and manage to attack their defensive point from behind! (And thus not losing an attack die anymore.)
-
AndyDufresne
- Posts: 24935
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
- Contact:
-
Banana Stomper
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:39 pm
- Location: Richmond, Virginia
- Contact:
If anyone has played the LOTR risk game, they have features such as these. certain areas add 1 to your highest defensive roll, also they have leaders that can move with some of your troops. They add one whether you are attacking or defending to your highest roll.
Basically my point is, its been tried, and i liked it. It did create good fortresses, but it sorta created an area in which someone could get there feet on the ground again and stay in the game. I think the key is to only have two or so of these in the map. But one other thing that made it work was the leaders, which essentially gave you the opportunity to cancel out the bonus, so it was a balancing factor.
Basically my point is, its been tried, and i liked it. It did create good fortresses, but it sorta created an area in which someone could get there feet on the ground again and stay in the game. I think the key is to only have two or so of these in the map. But one other thing that made it work was the leaders, which essentially gave you the opportunity to cancel out the bonus, so it was a balancing factor.