[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [risk] Multiple attacks
This is fine for turn based Risque, but not simultaneous risk.
Too many time dependancies. Let us look at your fine example...
FOr the sake of this argument, let's change naf to 24.
You submit
swift> ven -1 -> per
swift> per -1 -> bra
swift> arg 1 -> bra
dpriddy submits
dpriddy> bra 5 -> arg
dpriddy> arg -1 -> per
rrognlie submits
rrognlie> naf 24 -> bra
When does your arg 1 -> bra occur? when does rrognlie's invasion of
bra occur?
Depending on when combat mode is involved, it would have dire
consequences. I would ass-u-me that you'd want it to coincide with the
per -1 -> bra invasion, but at the time of initial evaluation, you don't
have any in per. so it might be evaluated in phases (for this example,
let's use the Normal method)
And depending on when rrognlie invades, he'll either be a coattacker
or a defendant. If defending, he wins.
phase 1
swift> ven -1(25) -> per
swift> arg 1 -> bra
dpriddy> bra 5 -> arg
rrognlie> naf 24 -> bra
swift invades per with 25 (leaves 1 in ven)
dpriddy invades arg with 4 (leaves 1 in bra)
rrognlie invaded bra with 24
phase 2
swift> per -1(24) -> bra
dpriddy> arg -1(3) -> per
swift fails to take bra (leaves 1 in per)
rrognlie is reduced to 1 in bra
dpriddy invades per with 2 (leaves 1 in arg)
In this particular example, it kind of works, but I can easily envision
ambiguities creeping in. And nothing spoils a game more than when you
expect something to work one way, and the might/might not...
Richard
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:04:49AM -0500, Eric Shultz wrote:
> Ok. I got one vote of confidence on the concept of multiple attacks.
> That's enough encouragement to get me blathering for hours.
>
> Here's what I propose: We add to the current move system an "all but
> [some number of armies]", then allow multiple attacks. The shortest
> notation I can think of would be negative numbers. so...
>
> eus 1 -> wus would move one army into wus
> eus -1 -> wus would leave one army in eus and move all others into wus.
>
> combine this with multiple attacks and you've got mayhem - which in Risk
> is a good thing.
>
>
> Here's the big "for example"
>
>
> +===+ ++===+=+====++ 4 | 2 | | +-----+
> |ven| || |egy || rro | dpr | |
> | 26| || naf | 15 || +-----+-+=+-+---+
> |swi| || 7 |rro || | |mal|ngu|
> +-+-+-+---++ || rro +----++=+===+ | 12| |
> |per| ||-----|| | | |rro| |
> | | bra || ++-+---+ eaf | +-+-+-+-+-+
> | | 5 || |con| 1 +---+ |wau|eau|
> +---+ dpr || | 1| dpr |mad| | 1| 1|
> |arg| || |dpr| | 1| |rro|rro|
> | 1+-----++ +-+-+-----+-+dpr| +---+---+
> |swi| | saf | |
> +---+ | 1 +-----+
> | rro |
> +-------+
>
> In one turn, swi could send the following orders:
>
> ven -1 -> per (would move 25 armies into per)
> per -1 -> bra (would move 24 armies into bra, where they crush the evil
> dpr. After the battle, they have 19 left.)
> bra -5 -> naf (would move 14 armies into naf, where they meet rro. If
> rro does not move any of egy into naf. swi wins naf and has 7 armies
> left there. If rro moves 15 armies into naf, swi loses)
> naf 2 -> con (If swi won the naf battle, this command would move 2
> armies into con. If swi lost the naf battle, there would be no armies
> to move into con and this command would be ignored.)
>
>
> Well?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
> unsubscribe risk-users
> as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
--
/ \__ | Richard Rognlie / Sendmail Consultant / Sendmail, Inc.
\__/ \ | URL: http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/
/ \__/ |
\__/ | *BSD and Linux: The Ultimate Windows NT Service Packs