No, what I'm saying is: 'I don't think the mechanism you propose will have the effect you want to achieve, and the effect you want to achieve can be achieved far more simply anyway".Daveybaby wrote: Youre basically saying "i can do this to exploit the mechanism, therefore your idea wont work". But i'm saying - thats NOT an exploit because it can be countered.
You say that this mechanism will lead to strategic variation, I disagree. I think it would likley lead to a single dominant strategy, with some tactical variations. And I'm not alone in this opinion.
So the whole strategy of a space battle comes down to this: each side tries to get the smallest force they can get away with around the others flanks, and then blasts them from the front. That's not what I call a lot of varied strategies. There could be a lot of tactical variations on that one strategy, but I don't think that is nearly enough.Daveybaby wrote:Specifically, it forces me to counter it by, for example, building my own ships specifically designed to shoot down small, fast, sneaky ships (i.e. pack them with sensors and PD weapons) and using them to intercept your ships. At that point, your ships are dead to no effect, so youve wasted all that money. So maybe you take some heavy cruisers with them to take out my PD ships so that your small ships can do their job. And then maybe i send some cruisers with my PD ships. And so on..
The Total War system is this: Units are strong at the front, weak in the rear and to the flanks.What i have done IS take the total war model and adapt it to my use. Its really no more complex than the total war system, i honestly dont see why you think it is.
As I understand it, your proposal is this: Ships have shielding which is strong in all directions, except if attacked from more than one direction, wherein the sheilds become weaker to attacks from all directions, as determined by a mathematical formula that calculates the lessening of shield efficiency in proportion to the number of directions a ship is attacked from.
The second is flat out a more complex rule than the first, which already achieves its objective well. Hence it makes me think KISS.
Yes, but it doesn't mean a single archer behind your flank makes your elite infantry an easy kill for the enemy spearmen in front of you. If it did it would make flanking an overpowered, unintuiative, exploitable single dimension killer tactic.And for the record, the total war system *is* vulnerable to attacks from the rear by fast, manouevrable, lightly armed units. Which is the whole POINT. The game actually specifically includes units to do this - light cavalry.
I believe the proposal as you stated it would be the equivalent of this. Let me repeat that I like your idea, but I think the implementation needs (at least) some refinement.
If you don't think something as simple as shields = strong at front / weak at back is appropriate as a solution, how about addressing this problem another way? For example, perhaps each sheild would have a minimum damage required from each facing to 'divert power' and thus reduce effectiveness to other facings. It's too complex for my taste, but something like that could work.
Your misinterpretation is not a good excuse to call into question my competancy.This to me sounded like somebody worried about either AI (development) complexity or processing capability - wasnt sure which so I addressed both possibilities (and just to reiterate, neither possibility is relevant). Note i said "if" as in "IF this is what you meant".
The phrasesI never said ignorant, so i'd appreciate it if you didnt put words into my mouth - and if you choose to feel patronised by someone countering something you've said (or indeed not said) then thats up to you. Its only flame bait if you over-react.
and "...you are ignorant of how computers work" have the same meaning. Both are patronising in the sense that they assume that it is likley that you have a greater understanding of something, without any evidence to that effect. The word 'if' does not excuse this. Any statement with the form 'If you think X then you are Y' where Y is derogatory is at least potentially insulting, and doesn't add anything positive to a discussion. Note that I didn't overreact, I just asked you politely not to do it. I'm more than happy to drop it now....you don't understand how computers work