Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- designer_workshop:proposed:unitrangelimits [2013/08/16 15:15]
M57
+++ designer_workshop:proposed:unitrangelimits [2014/07/11 07:09] (current)
M57 [A Post Comparing M57s Version of the Feature to one proposed by Korrun:]
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
   -Pop-up Attack and Fortify windows reveal the same information as above for the attacking/fortifying territory, but also include the current MCost of the territory being attacked/fortified.
   -An approximation of a territory's MCount can be ascertained by noting the transparency of a superscripted dot that is the same color as the unit # text to which it is attached.
+====A Post Comparing M57s Version of the Feature to one proposed by Korrun:====
+Korrun wrote:
+Just to resubmit my idea on this (which I think is simpler and easier to represent visually), for terrain/movement restrictions I would propose that each border can be set to use up a certain number of attacks (in a board with a limited number of attacks of course). This could be represented to the player next to the dice mods. Example: 8 attack maximum, most of the map defaults to 1 attack being used per attack made, an open area that uses up 0 attacks (yay, free attacks!),  a road that uses half an attack, a fortified area that uses 2 attacks, a long range artillery that uses 4 attacks, and an airdrop that uses up 8 attacks.
+M57 wrote:
+I think yours is an excellent solution, and though I'm not convinced, I wouldn't be surprised if it is easier to implement.  Let's do a comparison..
+I'm not sure about one being better than the other visually.  Both of our systems don't HAVE to have a visual counter - mine could work just by hovering over the attacking territory - not to mention that with both of our systems the information could be displayed in the attack pop-up window so players could be sure of conditions before they roll the dice. There could be cues like the dots used in Simulgear to warn players when units can no longer move due to terrain restrictions, etc (although that feature would probably be much more relevant with my system).
+Mine involves the target territory while yours involves each individual border.
+Yours keeps a global count of how many 'attacks' that can be made (this requires a limited # of attacks allowed), while mine keeps individual track of the 'movement' cost of any given piece on the board (attacks are not counted), in effect restricting the range of each stack on an individual basis, all the while not requiring a global limit on the number of attacks that can occur.
+With yours a player could use all of his movement count to run a single stack quite far, whereas with mine a player can move every stack on the board with no restrictions on the number of stacks that can be moved, but each stack's range would be limited by the set MovementLimit  and terrain restrictions.
+Mine simulates time. If you have "Back to Attack ON and enable MovementCount in the Fortify phase, you have a sophisticated mechanism that requires players to consider both 'timing' and 'terrain' when fortifying mid-turn.
+Yours uses a per/attack count (right?), while mine uses a per/BorderCrossed count.
+Yours better represents time and unit autonomy related elements in the sense that it counts each roll as an 'event.'
+Summarizing:
+Because yours works on a border basis, it offers a more sophisticated and higher degree of control over terrain related costs. Because it uses a per/attack count, yours offers a better sense of time and unit autonomy than mine at the micro-battle level.
+Because mine works on a territory basis with a per/BorderCrossed counting system, it offers a better sense of time passage and unit autonomy on a macro scale. It doesn't restrict the number of stacks that can use their full movement range, and prevents players from blitzing a single stack.
+Oh, and I love your idea of the option of a 0 cost border/territory.  I just added it to mine ;)

WarGear Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools