Re: Request For Comments...

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Some people whose judgement I respect tell me the whole concept of che
> needs a redesign.

che are way too wimpy.  They should function as spies, as
anti-aircraft units, and should be under the coordinated command of
the invaded player.  And all che commands should work without a cap.
Fighting che should cost billions, and damage the happiness of your
entire country.  OTOH maybe realism isn't such a good goal.


> 
>> 4) Terrorists (aka land spies w/ "sabotage")

-"What's new, Normie?" -"Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach.
They're demanding beer."



>> 6)  I'd like to revisit an idea that was previously discussed back in
> 
> An alternative approach: limit effectiveness of large stacks.  Let
> combat strength add up up only to a suitable limit (number of units,
> number of men, whatever), then give diminishing returns.  This
> approach is not used for classical boardgames, since there you have to
> keep the calculations as simple as possible.  Stacking limits, on the
> other hand, are no real problem there.  Computer games are different.

The conventional 20% self-inflicted casualty rate may be a useful
guideline here.  1/5th of the time, when you win a combat round, you
still lose a mil from your own stack.  This could be truly random,
rather than largest/cheapest, making combat riskier.  You might want
to hold back the most valuable units, just to keep them at 100%.  This
might only apply to the larger of the two forces, where the confusion
is likely to favor the smaller force, or to some threshold.

-harmless