Is this possible?

Is this possible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series

Message

damezzi -> Is this possible? (9/18/2009 12:54:05 AM)
I noticed that Advanced Tactics editor is very flexible, so I decided to post a question I posted when I first began to play Toaw. My idea then was to create a scenario in which battles could be solved by playing chess, outside the game. But at the time I wasn't able to be clear enough about what I expected. I don't need the game to feed the results automatically, but just be able to control the results of a battle by any kind of input, so that the a player who won the chess match would be able to jump into the conquered hex through this input. Characteristics of the unit would only guide the player when setting up the chess game, so that such things as time constraints, handicaps, opponent's ranking, initial position, etc, would be dependent on it, but would affect battle only on the computer turn, since during the player turn, he would decide the result by the input available. This is just a sketch of an idea. I could never take it seriously, since there isn't any game around which gives the scenario designer power over the way of resolving battles and I need the AI (so, no traditional board game here) to move and produce forces, since the idea wouldn't fit multiplayer... two chess players of different levels would have a hard time balancing the game.

Tufkal2 -> RE: Is this possible? (9/18/2009 10:57:50 AM)
Sounds like an interesting idea. Did I understand correctly that you would like for combat to have the involved units zoom into a smaller battlefield (like iirc Master of Magic, Space Empires or Ufo)? That would be nice but I think with the current land attack/naval attack/artillery buttons the structure of combat is defined. Multi-maps would be nice to have though. On the other hand the opportunities to mod the acutal units and their combat behaviour are very flexible and allow for huge varieties. Dont know any system which comes close...

damezzi -> RE: Is this possible? (9/18/2009 4:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lunaticus Sounds like an interesting idea. Did I understand correctly that you would like for combat to have the involved units zoom into a smaller battlefield (like iirc Master of Magic, Space Empires or Ufo)? That would be nice but I think with the current land attack/naval attack/artillery buttons the structure of combat is defined. Multi-maps would be nice to have though. On the other hand the opportunities to mod the acutal units and their combat behaviour are very flexible and allow for huge varieties. Dont know any system which comes close... The idea is simpler than having a second map or the such. I would just set up an attack, take note of the odds, go to another game like chessmaster, setup board initial position, time constraints, opponent AI level, etc, based on the odds I have noted, play the game, come back to Advanced Tactics and resolve the battle manually based on the results in chessmaster: if I have won, I would eliminate some of the AI counters; if I have lost, I would eliminate my own counters. The only thing I need is the ability of defining who won or who lost a battle manually. Taking Toaw as example: if I had the ability to create a unit that would always lose if conducting a limited attack and always win when conducting an ignore losses attack, it would solve my problem, but that is impossible in Toaw and those two kinds of attack are just a difference in intensity, but perhaps AT has different commands which I could use as trigger to define who loses and who wins. Only the player units could have this trigger available, or the AI would profit from it and always win in it's turn.

Tufkal2 -> RE: Is this possible? (9/18/2009 5:21:56 PM)
Well .... in AT you also have two kind of ground attacks: the usual ground combat and artillery being represented by two different buttons. You could set it up such that using artillery always wins for the attacker and using usual ground attack always loses (or vice versa but thats a tick more difficult). But then the interface to chessmaster would be purely manual, right?

damezzi -> RE: Is this possible? (9/19/2009 12:05:42 AM)
Yes, the interface to chessmaster would be manual. I just need to be able to control who wins and who loses in a battle. It`s more or less what you suggested, but my only concern in this case is that the AI would also compute this logic and always win in it`s turn. Chess would only work as a reference for resolving battles during the player turn, since I don`t believe it is possible to control results during the AI turn.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Is this possible? (9/20/2009 9:29:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: damezzi My idea then was to create a scenario in which battles could be solved by playing chess, outside the game. ... I don't need the game to feed the results automatically, but just be able to control the results of a battle by any kind of input, so that the a player who won the chess match would be able to jump into the conquered hex through this input. Characteristics of the unit would only guide the player when setting up the chess game, so that such things as time constraints, handicaps, opponent's ranking, initial position, etc, would be dependent on it, but would affect battle only on the computer turn, since during the player turn, he would decide the result by the input available. This is just a sketch of an idea. I could never take it seriously, since there isn't any game around which gives the scenario designer power over the way of resolving battles and I need the AI (so, no traditional board game here) to move and produce forces, since the idea wouldn't fit multiplayer... two chess players of different levels would have a hard time balancing the game. Isn't this the same question as I asked here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2168808&mpage=1&key=� ... except that I was serious and had Close Combat in mind rather than chess. I suppose I should confess that this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2219143&mpage=1&key=� ... was in the same vein.

Tufkal2 -> RE: Is this possible? (9/20/2009 10:01:25 AM)
Well I think what might go (even though I do not know how this were to play as a game but then this is for the scenario designer to work out) is to get a digital result from an outside tool (like: Attack succeeds, attack fails) to AT. What I think will not work is to get any more complex result (like: number of losses on each side) back into AT. So if AT is just as the strategic tool and "chess" (with outcomes of win or loose) as the tactical this might work. However a detailed playing out of a battle and feeding back the full result I dont think is possible. Also it is quite a jump to use the artillery button for this which will need some further adjustments. @damezzi: Do you have an outline of the game you are up to?

damezzi -> RE: Is this possible? (9/20/2009 11:03:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan Isn't this the same question as I asked here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2168808&mpage=1&key=� ... except that I was serious and had Close Combat in mind rather than chess. I suppose I should confess that this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2219143&mpage=1&key=� ... was in the same vein. It's basically the same idea, but I really don't need the game to be fed with battle results; I just need to be able to define who wins. Your idea would be more complicated, since AT would have to reproduce casualties, readiness and other status variables to adjust counter values. I just need to be able to define "this counter is out (or withdraws), this other goes into the hex" or "defender holds position and attacker is out (or breaks)" quote: ORIGINAL: Lunaticus Well I think what might go (even though I do not know how this were to play as a game but then this is for the scenario designer to work out) is to get a digital result from an outside tool (like: Attack succeeds, attack fails) to AT. What I think will not work is to get any more complex result (like: number of losses on each side) back into AT. So if AT is just as the strategic tool and "chess" (with outcomes of win or loose) as the tactical this might work. However a detailed playing out of a battle and feeding back the full result I dont think is possible. Also it is quite a jump to use the artillery button for this which will need some further adjustments. @damezzi: Do you have an outline of the game you are up to? Lunaticus, as I said above, I can make with a binary solution (counter eliminated/not eliminated). Obviously it would be nice to be able to control counter variables, but we do with what we have. Also, as I said earlier, I never planned it seriously, since I couldn't think of an engine which would handle that, but the basic idea is to create a medieval period scenario with pieces of equipment which would translate into values that could be used for advantage in the chess board. Things like flanking or terrain advantage, for example, could give player a time bonus; attacking an important city would force player into an initial position based on a characteristic opening of the region being attacked; difference in odds would force player to play against a stronger/weaker AI; great battles would be resolved with long games, while fast battles (small number of units) would be resolved with fast chess or blitz, etc. I only have the basic idea, since all this would demand a lot of play testing and I need an engine which could handle that to, at least, try it.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Is this possible? (9/22/2009 6:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lunaticus What I think will not work is to get any more complex result (like: number of losses on each side) back into AT. So if AT is just as the strategic tool and "chess" (with outcomes of win or loose) as the tactical this might work. However a detailed playing out of a battle and feeding back the full result I dont think is possible. I know .... but we can dream [sm=innocent0001.gif]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875