|
jchastain -> RE: How long does a Detailed Battle Last?? (7/19/2005 7:49:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Personally I dont think the defender should be rewarded in any way for running around and not fighting. That is nonsense. The idea is to defend the province...not play dodgeball. If you have no intentions of fighting, then concede the battle and be done with it.
The only way I see this not being abused is if the defender is tied to some sort of location. Maybe he can pick it at the end of day one or at the begining of the battle (and it has to be within 'x' hexes of the center of the board). After he picks his area, he has to defend it or else he either loses, or less harshly, suffers morale penalties instead.
Without something like that, the defender just has to bring a smallish Cav army and play around. Thats not tactics, its not strategy, its gamesmanship...yech... [;)]
What you say does make a good deal of sense as it would prevent a potential abuse. That said, I worry that it likely would be difficult to code as it would require new interfaces as well as logic changes. When I break this down in my mind, I have to separate single player from multi-player.
Single player - the AI obviously won't do the gamey keep-away game. And if the player chooses to get a cheap victory this way against the AI, who cares?
Multi-player - This is where the real potential for abuse exists. Since there isn't a public server where people just attach into a game with other random players, there should be some friendship or at least contact between the players in advance and I would hope it could be agreed that they would either all win "anyway they could" so it was at least even or all agree to not abuse the system in that way. Some would likely break their word, but I hope that we are talking about a very small minority of players (who would find themselves without invitations to future games).
So, in my final analysis, should we not include the attacker degradation that would benefit everyone, single- and multi-player games alike, because of the risk that friends getting together for a game will either not discuss the issue or will not stick to their agreements? When I look at it that way, I have a hard time recommending against putting it in there.
Your solution might be the best of all. But it might also be too complex to implement in a reasonable timeframe and therefore the decision might be to degrade attackers faster or do nothing. In that case, even though I share some of your concerns, I think attacker degradation is preferable to doing nothing.
|
|
|
|
