Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 28 Jul 2011, 5:41 pm

Tom don't fret about complaining or criticizing; I'm good no matter the level of agreement or criticism. We've always ended up with reasoned compromise at some point; if only congress were so productive...

This aspect of wing range from an owned center considering crossing oceans needs more thought...

Fleets can move into an ocean and through to the opposite side of the ocean without this concern because it is accepted that they have the ability. They can move into the ocean on one turn and out the opposite side the next turn.

Why can't wings? Ok, perhaps they can't carry enough fuel to make it all the way to the opposite side; is that where your concern lays?

What I was suggesting is that when the wing moves through to the opposite side of the ocean, they can only do so if the space on the opposite side they move into is within the 4 space range of an owned supply center and that math cannot include the ocean space.

In general I think that should work. But, I can see weakness in that thought if that space is a full 4 spaces from a center. Thus, if we try to filter with a bit of realism, that wing crossed up to 4 spaces prior to entering the ocean, and then crossed the ocean, and then moves into a space on the opposite side that could be as many as 4 spaces away from a different owned center over on the other side of the ocean....hmmm.....

That may be a bit much.... which means either the notion of range from owned center itself is too much and needs to be tossed from the rule set, or, kept but the number reduced which you suggested in your last comment.

This is probably going to need map examples to add some visual reference to the text discussion thus far. In time I'll get there.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11279
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Jul 2011, 8:15 pm

Yep, fuel supplies as well as the advanced level of repair and maintenance is required.
If you do not count the ocean space, I think we agree???
To be honest, I like range limits for these units. The extra vision bonus is HUGE, not being able to take cities is a nice detriment but not enough, honestly, we have to be VERY careful about giving away so much extra vision, this extra info should be "expensive" to gain. I prefer to see wings severely limited in range and ability.

Much like the blimp idea where I stated if a unit launching a blimp were attacked at all, even "tapped" the blimp is destroyed. We should make this extra vision more of a gamble/"expensive" (in terms of time)
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 29 Jul 2011, 7:05 pm

Ok, 2nd draft considering input and pondering further just what role these units need to play in the game that is unique; again I have underlined the differences from the NWO rules:

Wing Units:
Once one player has reached 40% of the victory criterion, then the ability for all players to build wings is available.
Wings may be built in any owned supply center.
Wings may only move upto 3 spaces away from an owned city. Oceans & Deserts (same as oceans but not used in a game yet) do not figure in this calculation.
Wings may only move ONE SPACE PER TURN.
Wings cannot build/improve cities.
Wings can move or support only into adjacent spaces (just as any other army or fleet).
Wings can train their offense/defense (just as any other army or fleet).
Wings may fly over land or water. Wings may NOT also fly over the restricted areas unless the specific game rules indicate otherwise.
Wings see two spaces adjacent in all directions. The exception is when a wing is in an ocean or desert space, then it only sees one space adjacent.
When a wing exits an ocean or desert space, an owned city must be within 3 spaces of the space the wing has entered; and, the ocean or desert space cannot be counted as one of the 3 spaces.
Wings may attack and support attacks but may not take "control" of a supply center. Should a wing unit occupy another's center that center is considered to be "bombarded". While ownership does not pass, the controlling power loses unit support a center provides until the wing unit leaves (basically it becomes "neutral" until the wing leaves then reverts back to the owners control).
Wings may "airlift" armies similar to a fleet's convoy order with the exception that wings may not link several wings together to form a chain as fleets may do. Airlift order writing notation is the letter "C" the same as a convoy order. If the convoy rules of Hemisphere are being used, then Wings will have the ability to train-up their convoy ability the same as fleets.
Wings may receive support from other units.


Thoughts on that rule set?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11279
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 30 Jul 2011, 6:50 am

I think I'm a fan!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 01 Aug 2011, 10:47 am

My suggestion is that cities should lose improvement levels when captured but never below level1. For example, Player A spends the time building Paris to a level 3 city. Player B comes along and captures Paris which is then immediately reduced to a level 2 city. Player A takes Paris back 2 turns later and it is reduced to a level 1 city.

Considering the level of damage cities take when major battles are fought in them, it only makes sense for that damage to be reflected in the game. Also, it always rather pissed me off that a player could spend 8 turns building a city to level 3, then lose it. Not only does he lose a unit himself and he requires 3 units to take it back, but his opponent gains 2 new units.
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 01 Aug 2011, 4:33 pm

Archduke Russell John wrote:My suggestion is that cities should lose improvement levels when captured but never below level1. For example, Player A spends the time building Paris to a level 3 city. Player B comes along and captures Paris which is then immediately reduced to a level 2 city. Player A takes Paris back 2 turns later and it is reduced to a level 1 city.

Considering the level of damage cities take when major battles are fought in them, it only makes sense for that damage to be reflected in the game. Also, it always rather pissed me off that a player could spend 8 turns building a city to level 3, then lose it. Not only does he lose a unit himself and he requires 3 units to take it back, but his opponent gains 2 new units.


Interesting. We have discussed the idea of giving units the ability to 'demolish' city levels. The rough idea was in certain scenarios when the loss of a city is certain your best strategy may be to reduce the value of the city if you can before it falls. Therefore a unitcouldspend 'x' number of turns to reduce a city by a level.

Your notion os that when acity is taken from another player it is taken at 1-level less than the level it was at time of capture.

I can see the logic behind the notion & think there is merit to exploring this idea further.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 01 Aug 2011, 4:53 pm

Roadkill wrote:Your notion os that when acity is taken from another player it is taken at 1-level less than the level it was at time of capture.


Yes but never to below Level 1. By this I mean a city never completely destroyed and requiring rebuilding. So a level 3 city is reduced to level 2, a level 2 city is reduced to level 1 but a level 1 city stays a level 1 city.
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 01 Aug 2011, 5:31 pm

Archduke Russell John wrote:
Roadkill wrote:Your notion os that when acity is taken from another player it is taken at 1-level less than the level it was at time of capture.


Yes but never to below Level 1. By this I mean a city never completely destroyed and requiring rebuilding. So a level 3 city is reduced to level 2, a level 2 city is reduced to level 1 but a level 1 city stays a level 1 city.

Agreed