TWiki Home Tharsis . Combat . BattleFieldDesign (r1.1 vs. r1.24) Tharsis webs:
Design | Guilds | Combat | Website
Combat . { Home | Changes | Index | Search | Go }
 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.24 - 20 Jan 2005 - FreD)
Changed:
<
<

Concept of dodging and blocking

>
>

Questions regarding messages

Changed:
<
<

Three ways of using defence; parry, dodge and block.

  • An important question for the design of hand to hand combat. When figthing melee, is should not be possible to miss your target, if you are in melee distance (polearm vs melee doesn't count since in polearm distance the melee guy can't attack and in melee distance the polearm guy gets heavy penalties for having a weapon that is too long - another exception is huge melee weapons to ponder perhaps). Instead of missing the target dodge your attack. Ranged combat will have misses, but hand to hand combat.. no.
    • Why shouldn't hand-to-hand work the same as everything else? -- PumaN - 07 Nov 2004
>
>

I can't do it. To tie all messages down to a single line and take all combatants, their actions, their items, the hits effect, the effects effect, the current weapon, its effect, the outcome, a correct timeline, right grammar and currect timeline in one single block of text, is out of my legue right now. I'm blasting away straight into the code and it doesn't work this time. Not even for a simple draft as this is. I need HELP.

Changed:
<
<

Blocking
>
>

If you want to see combat done soon, help me with this -- FreD - 11 Dec 2004

Changed:
<
<

Easiest thing to do. Its dependant on your gear and the endurance of your gear.

>
>

Just a quick though. When printing out the messages, if they were fully customizable to show/hide information should I concider giving one message in several lines? Instead of one long sentence there are multiple, shorter ones that are more readable (what they contain is another question). Its all rather complex because those messages are supposed to represent the heat of the battle and handle all kinds of situations.

Changed:
<
<

No gear: Simply stupid, you get hurt alot.
Weapon Only: Use your weapon to block, weapon takes damage, and you might get hurt.
Armour: Better, the better the armour the more it blocks. You still take damage from strong hits.
Shield: Best. Shields are made to block attacks.

How good and bad a thing is to block with is defined by how much damage it can take and some other factors. Weapons are fragile and break easily when used for block. Armour is medium range (depends on the type). Shields have best endurance for blocking. (Armour and hit-locations is something different, discuss elsewhere).

Dodging

Try to avoid the hit completely. This is ofcourse the most effective against an attack. Some types of attacks are harder to dodge than others and the dodge-move is dependant on how much gear the player has on and how much he/she weights (and some other factors).

Parry

Use your weapon to redirect the attack elsewhere. Much like blocking with your weapon but if successful the weapon seldom take any damage. Unsuccesful means you get hurt, perhaps even more, by the attack.

>
>

Messages must:

  • be intressting enough to read a hundred of times without getting bored
  • handle all kinds of situations
  • display proper grammar
  • fully customizable (detailed filtering)
  • leave much room for own imagination without killing variation
  • be informative
  • brief enough to be glanced at a billion of times

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.23 - 07 Nov 2004 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

    • Why shouldn't hand-to-hand work the same as everything else? -- PumaN - 07 Nov 2004

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.22 - 05 Nov 2004 - FreD)
Deleted:
<
<

Below does not work properly yet
I coded everything below and it quickly became as complex as other theorys. A new version is in development.

  • NOTE If entities had a "direction of facing" it would be much easier, then you could get flanks and rear distances rather easy. The direction of facing means which enemy you have your focus on.
  • [UPDATE] It does work now, I won't go into the coding but in short; you always assume combatants will move to a "free" spot in the battlefield and try to keep the distances from figthers that are busy with someone else or not in combat at all for some reason(withdrew, spell). There's a major flaw; the more combatants that enter the combat the buggier it gets, especially if you keep switching targets or fight with multiple monsters (which in turn is fighting agains others). Working on a new update. I have not yet looked into the comment above but I have a faint idea that the more detailed the relative positions are the easier the battlefield positions will get (since you have more information to work with).

All EE that are engaged with AE is concidered to be on the flanks of AE except the one that is in AE's focus (the one he is fighting back against).

All entities have four "slots", ranged, polearm, melee and flank. The battlefield keeps track on all entities relations to eachother. With flank beeing engaged without the EE to have you in his focus and the others a distance measure.

Example 1: AE1 and AE2 engage EE1 and EE2. Starting from ranged distance the move towards eachother. AE1 against EE1 and AE2 against EE2. AE1 and EE1 is in melee distance and engaged towards eachother. If there is no formation both battles take place in ranged distance from eachother. EE1 dies and AE1 is now free in ranged distance from AE2 and EE2, that is still battling. AE1 advance on EE2 and ends up on EE2's flank since his focus is still on AE2. AE1 is free to disangage combat and move into other positions but as soon as he joins engaged combat with EE2 he is concidered to be on EE2's flank (unless EE2 changes focus and thus moving AE2 into EE2's flank).
If EE3 shows up and engages the combat he begins in ranged distance from all entities. If he decides to engage AE1 that is now in polearm distance from EE2 and AE2 (still fighting), EE3 will move towards AE1's position still having AE2 and EE2 in ranged distance.

There's no need to figure out where the combatants really are in the battlefield, only their relation to eachother.

Its only when we move into formations it gets really messy.. if EE3 enter a formation with EE2 (that is figting AE2) he moves towards EE2 as he engages AE1 in polarm distance. Therefor ending up (after one movement round from ranged) in polearm distance from AE2 and EE2 and AE1.

  • If this should be allowed at all, EE2 is pretty busy fighting AE2 to enter some kind of advanced formation (I think it should, concider to players that is outnumbered by monsters and can't flee because there is ranged combatants all around the battlefield, they decide to continue the battle back to back to at least clear one flank slot each).

  • Issues
    • There's no "behind". So some detailed tactical stuff might be lost (while other tactical aspects would be gained). Behind is concidered to be the flank of EE (without having him noticing it).

NOTE This is same as PumaN's idea with some stuff taken from the ad&d rules mashed togeather. If you stuck more positions in there (other than engaged/unengaed and distance) it will quickly become very messy as PumaN have said a couple of times already.

-- FreD - 11 Oct 2004

  • That EE, AE stuff makes no sense to me. Where are these "simple drawings" ? Can you make a chart for me and everyone? -- LuCid - 11 Oct 2004


Changed:
<
<

There is three "modes" in which you can avoid taking damage; parry, dodge and block.

>
>

Three ways of using defence; parry, dodge and block.

  • An important question for the design of hand to hand combat. When figthing melee, is should not be possible to miss your target, if you are in melee distance (polearm vs melee doesn't count since in polearm distance the melee guy can't attack and in melee distance the polearm guy gets heavy penalties for having a weapon that is too long - another exception is huge melee weapons to ponder perhaps). Instead of missing the target dodge your attack. Ranged combat will have misses, but hand to hand combat.. no.

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.21 - 22 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Added:
>
>

  • defence -
Added:
>
>

    • dodge -
    • block -
Added:
>
>

  • Do you really need to be in a party to guard someone/something? FreD
Added:
>
>


Concept of dodging and blocking

There is three "modes" in which you can avoid taking damage; parry, dodge and block.

Blocking

Easiest thing to do. Its dependant on your gear and the endurance of your gear.

No gear: Simply stupid, you get hurt alot.
Weapon Only: Use your weapon to block, weapon takes damage, and you might get hurt.
Armour: Better, the better the armour the more it blocks. You still take damage from strong hits.
Shield: Best. Shields are made to block attacks.

How good and bad a thing is to block with is defined by how much damage it can take and some other factors. Weapons are fragile and break easily when used for block. Armour is medium range (depends on the type). Shields have best endurance for blocking. (Armour and hit-locations is something different, discuss elsewhere).

Dodging

Try to avoid the hit completely. This is ofcourse the most effective against an attack. Some types of attacks are harder to dodge than others and the dodge-move is dependant on how much gear the player has on and how much he/she weights (and some other factors).

Parry

Use your weapon to redirect the attack elsewhere. Much like blocking with your weapon but if successful the weapon seldom take any damage. Unsuccesful means you get hurt, perhaps even more, by the attack.


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.20 - 17 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Added:
>
>

    • offensive actions, assailing actions
Changed:
<
<

BELOW DOES NOT WORK YET

>
>

Below does not work properly yet

Added:
>
>

  • [UPDATE] It does work now, I won't go into the coding but in short; you always assume combatants will move to a "free" spot in the battlefield and try to keep the distances from figthers that are busy with someone else or not in combat at all for some reason(withdrew, spell). There's a major flaw; the more combatants that enter the combat the buggier it gets, especially if you keep switching targets or fight with multiple monsters (which in turn is fighting agains others). Working on a new update. I have not yet looked into the comment above but I have a faint idea that the more detailed the relative positions are the easier the battlefield positions will get (since you have more information to work with).

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.19 - 16 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Added:
>
>


BELOW DOES NOT WORK YET
I coded everything below and it quickly became as complex as other theorys. A new version is in development.
  • NOTE If entities had a "direction of facing" it would be much easier, then you could get flanks and rear distances rather easy. The direction of facing means which enemy you have your focus on.
Changed:
<
<

My theory (after some simple drawings) is that all EE that are engaged with AE is concidered to be on the flanks of AE except the one that is in AE's focus (the one he is fighting back against).

>
>

All EE that are engaged with AE is concidered to be on the flanks of AE except the one that is in AE's focus (the one he is fighting back against).

Changed:
<
<


That EE, AE stuff makes no sense to me. Where are these "simple drawings" ? Can you make a chart for me and everyone? -- LuCid - 11 Oct 2004

>
>

  • That EE, AE stuff makes no sense to me. Where are these "simple drawings" ? Can you make a chart for me and everyone? -- LuCid - 11 Oct 2004

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.18 - 11 Oct 2004 - LuCid)
Added:
>
>


That EE, AE stuff makes no sense to me. Where are these "simple drawings" ? Can you make a chart for me and everyone? -- LuCid - 11 Oct 2004


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.17 - 11 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Added:
>
>

My theory (after some simple drawings) is that all EE that are engaged with AE is concidered to be on the flanks of AE except the one that is in AE's focus (the one he is fighting back against).

All entities have four "slots", ranged, polearm, melee and flank. The battlefield keeps track on all entities relations to eachother. With flank beeing engaged without the EE to have you in his focus and the others a distance measure.

Example 1: AE1 and AE2 engage EE1 and EE2. Starting from ranged distance the move towards eachother. AE1 against EE1 and AE2 against EE2. AE1 and EE1 is in melee distance and engaged towards eachother. If there is no formation both battles take place in ranged distance from eachother. EE1 dies and AE1 is now free in ranged distance from AE2 and EE2, that is still battling. AE1 advance on EE2 and ends up on EE2's flank since his focus is still on AE2. AE1 is free to disangage combat and move into other positions but as soon as he joins engaged combat with EE2 he is concidered to be on EE2's flank (unless EE2 changes focus and thus moving AE2 into EE2's flank).
If EE3 shows up and engages the combat he begins in ranged distance from all entities. If he decides to engage AE1 that is now in polearm distance from EE2 and AE2 (still fighting), EE3 will move towards AE1's position still having AE2 and EE2 in ranged distance.

There's no need to figure out where the combatants really are in the battlefield, only their relation to eachother.

Its only when we move into formations it gets really messy.. if EE3 enter a formation with EE2 (that is figting AE2) he moves towards EE2 as he engages AE1 in polarm distance. Therefor ending up (after one movement round from ranged) in polearm distance from AE2 and EE2 and AE1.

  • If this should be allowed at all, EE2 is pretty busy fighting AE2 to enter some kind of advanced formation (I think it should, concider to players that is outnumbered by monsters and can't flee because there is ranged combatants all around the battlefield, they decide to continue the battle back to back to at least clear one flank slot each).

  • Issues
    • There's no "behind". So some detailed tactical stuff might be lost (while other tactical aspects would be gained). Behind is concidered to be the flank of EE (without having him noticing it).

NOTE This is same as PumaN's idea with some stuff taken from the ad&d rules mashed togeather. If you stuck more positions in there (other than engaged/unengaed and distance) it will quickly become very messy as PumaN have said a couple of times already.

-- FreD - 11 Oct 2004


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.16 - 07 Oct 2004 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

  • This system does not have a grid or relative positions, two entities are either engaged (melee-distance) or not engaged (any distance outside melee) -- PumaN - 07 Oct 2004

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.15 - 07 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Changed:
<
<

.....................|Snp|
MF left flank| M |MF right flank
P/S left.....|A/S|P/S right
R/S left.....|RSP|R/S right

>
>

               | Snp |
MF left flank  |  M  |  MF right flank
P/S left       | A/S |  P/S right
R/S left       | RSP |  R/S right

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.14 - 07 Oct 2004 - LuCid)
Added:
>
>

= Now I didn't read all of the above, but i was thinking just now about how a grid battle could work:

Edit drawing 'untitled' (requires a Java enabled browser)

Wtf? Why didn't it save my drawing? Took me f'ing 20 minutes to make the damn grid, and i can't even view it now. I'll set it up in text before i forget.

.....................|Snp|
MF left flank| M |MF right flank
P/S left.....|A/S|P/S right
R/S left.....|RSP|R/S right

LEGEND:

  • Snp = Sneaking Position
  • MF = mob flank position
  • M = mob default position
  • P/S = Parry/Strafe
  • A/S = Aggro/Starting player position
  • R/S = Ranged Strafe position
  • RSP = Ranged Starting Position

Grid is 3 by 3 + 1 Snp

-- LuCid - 06 Oct 2004


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.13 - 17 Feb 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>

      • I'd say a AE can choose to engage only 1 EE at a time and either disengaging or engaging an alternative EE could result in failure to do so or the EE getting free/advantageous attacks. The variation I see occurs when multiple EE engage a single AE. The AE should be able to switch engagement between any engaged EE without penalty. -- FantoM

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.12 - 10 Feb 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

  • Formations can be in loose or dense formations, some formations requires
Changed:
<
<

    • AE will not be less able to withdraw while engaged
>
>

    • AE will be less able to withdraw while engaged

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.11 - 10 Feb 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

    • All in formation must have same shield size
>
>

    • Efficiency is limited if not all have same shield-size

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.10 - 29 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

In the text, AE will refer to the active battleentity, EE to an enemy battleentity, and FE to a friendly. When there is more than one involved, they will be marked AE#, EE# and FE# respectively.

>
>

In the text, AE will refer to the active battleentity, EE to an enemy battleentity, and FE to a friendly. When there is more than one involved, they will be marked AE#, EE# and FE# respectively. I use these to make it totally clear in statements what effects applies to what battleentity.

Changed:
<
<

>
>

  • Unengaging will occur if too many
  • AE unenngaging while EE are still engaging AE
Changed:
<
<

    • AE will not be able to withdraw
>
>

    • AE will not be less able to withdraw while engaged
Changed:
<
<

    • 2 units - two fronts (back to back), 3-7 - three fronts (triangle), 8+ - 4 fronts (square) [allow choosing lesser formation?]
>
>

    • 2 units - two fronts (back to back), 3-7 - three fronts (triangle), 8+ - 4 fronts (square) [allow choosing lesser amount of flanks?] [circle?]
Changed:
<
<

    • If 6 or more units in AE, can combine with formation with shield wall and spear hedge
>
>

    • If 6 or more units in AE, can combine formation with shield wall and/or spear hedge
  • [formations forming in formations?]

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.9 - 27 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

Added:
>
>

Changed:
<
<

The engagement-rules define the movement of the tides of the battlefield.

>
>

The engagement-rules define the movement of the tides of the battlefield.

Added:
>
>

Changed:
<
<

The interaction-rules define what the combatants can do to turn the tides of the battlefield.

>
>

The interaction-rules define what the combatants can do to turn the tides of the battlefield.

Changed:
<
<

    • in order
    • retreat
    • flee
>
>

    • in order -
    • retreat -
    • flee -
Added:
>
>

Changed:
<
<

The event-rules defines what happens when the tides of the battlefield roll.

>
>

The event-rules defines what happens when the tides of the battlefield roll.

Added:
>
>

  • Two units willing to engage eachother, will succeed if not both are engaged elsewhere
  • AE engaging EE1 can fail if AE is engaged by another EE than EE1 (this counts as unengaging the other EE)
Added:
>
>

Protecting

  • AE can protect one or more FE, the coverage depends on their relative sizes
  • When AE successfully protects FE when EE engages FE, EE will be engaging AE instead of FE
  • An FE protected by FE and engaged by EE, will get help from FE to unengage from EE
  • Two battleentities cannot protect eachother at the same time
  • A battleentity can only be protected if it is not engaging
Deleted:
<
<

Protecting

Changed:
<
<

>
>

  • Flanking is most likely to succeed for AE when EE is busy engaging other FEs
Changed:
<
<

The formations defines what shape the tides can take.

>
>

The formations defines what shape the tides can take.

Changed:
<
<

    • 2 units - two fronts (back to back), 3-7 - three fronts (triangle), 8+ - 4 fronts (square)
>
>

    • 2 units - two fronts (back to back), 3-7 - three fronts (triangle), 8+ - 4 fronts (square) [allow choosing lesser formation?]
Changed:
<
<

Definitions:

>
>

Definitions:


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.8 - 27 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

There is a defininition list at the bottom if you dont understand the use of certain words.

>
>

There is a defininition list at the bottom if you dont understand my special use of certain words.

Added:
>
>

It's primary goal is to control battles ranging from three to about a hundred units or so.

If using generalisation of large groups, it should also be somewhat capable of handling battles numbering in thousands or more.

There might be need for another system for battle between two single entities, since this involves another kind of detail where positions does not matter as much.

Changed:
<
<

    • focus -
    • charge -
>
>

    • focus - while AE focuses on EE1, AE will be more vulnerable to attacks from other EEs than EE1
    • charge - AE can only charge against an EE they are not already engaged
Added:
>
>

Engaging

Unengaging

Withdrawing

Protecting

Flanking

Changed:
<
<

Formations

>
>

Guarding

Changed:
<
<

against wall

>
>

Polearms

Standing back

Formations

The formations defines what shape the tides can take.

  • Formations breaks if AE runs, charges, falls or withdraws without holding order
  • Back against wall -
    • AE positioning with backs against a wall (when available) will protect AE from flanking from EE
    • AE will not be able to withdraw
  • Shield wall -
    • All in formation must have same shield size
    • vs missiles
      • gives a percentage protection based on shield size
    • vs melee
      • increases shield effectiveness
      • decreases effectiveness of large non-polearm weapons
  • Spear hedge -
    • Can only be formed with polearms
    • Can be several ranks deep based on polearm-size, max three
    • Can be combined with shield wall
  • Square -
    • Protects against flank attacks
    • 2 units - two fronts (back to back), 3-7 - three fronts (triangle), 8+ - 4 fronts (square)
    • If EE engaged with AE is less than double of one AE-front in size, only one flank of the units in AE will be engaged with EE if EE is not surrounding
    • If 6 or more units in AE, can combine with formation with shield wall and spear hedge
Changed:
<
<

  • combat - an event where two or more combatants engage in open aggressive actions
>
>

  • entity - any one unit or formation participating in the battlefield (can include remote combatants such as catapults)
  • combat - an event where two or more entities engage in open aggressive actions
Deleted:
<
<

  • aggressive actions - some better name please?
  • party - two or more combatants arranged in a combatgroup
Added:
>
>

  • aggressive actions - some better name please?
  • party - two or more combatants arranged in a combatgroup
  • combatgroup - ???
Deleted:
<
<

  • entity

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.7 - 22 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

Temporary save.

>
>

This is a temporary save, the document is not complete.

Added:
>
>


Added:
>
>


Changed:
<
<

Basic combat layout

A set of combat rules for handling of combat between three or more entities, they are also capable of handling combat between two entities.
>
>

Battlefield Design

This is a set of rules for handling of positions between two or more entities in a battlefield.
Changed:
<
<

The engagement-rules form the tides of the battlefield.

>
>

The engagement-rules define the movement of the tides of the battlefield.

Changed:
<
<

The interaction-rules are what the combatants can do to turn the tides of the battlefield.

>
>

The interaction-rules define what the combatants can do to turn the tides of the battlefield.

Changed:
<
<

Eventlist

The event-rules decides what happens when the tides of the battlefield roll.
>
>

Events

The event-rules defines what happens when the tides of the battlefield roll.
Deleted:
<
<

  • entity - Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit
Added:
>
>

  • entity

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.6 - 21 Jan 2003 - EmbeR)
Added:
>
>

  • entity - Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit
Deleted:
<
<

  • entity

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.5 - 21 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

%META:TOPICMOVED{by="PumaN" date="1043180028" from="Combat.CombatDesign" to="Combat.BattleFieldDesign"}%


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.4 - 21 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

Basic combat layout

A set of combat rules for handling of combat between three or more entities, they are also capable of handling combat between only two entities.
>
>

Basic combat layout

A set of combat rules for handling of combat between three or more entities, they are also capable of handling combat between two entities.
Changed:
<
<

The idea is around a few basic concepts.

  • Each AE is either engaged or unengaged:
    • Engaged
      • In close proximity to EE not uninterested in dealing A meleeblows
      • AE can only engage one EE
      • AE can be engaged by several EE
      • A battleentity engaged ???
    • Unengaged
      • Free from EE in AE proximity
>
>

Engagement

The engagement-rules form the tides of the battlefield.
  • Each AE is either engaged or unengaged
    • Being engaged means being in the direct vicinity (meleerange) of an EE
    • Being unengaged means partaking in the combat through ranged means or to tend other business within the battlefield
  • Engaging means getting AE within meleerange of one EE
  • AE can protect FE from engagement from EEs
  • Engage
    • AE can engage one EE at a time (?)
    • AE is engaged when
      • AE successfully engages EE or EE protector
      • AE is engaged by one or more EE
    • AE will risk free hits from EE if performing some actions
    • AE will risk failing actions that requires unengagement
  • Unengage
    • AE is unengaged when
      • AE is not engaging EE
      • No EE has successfully engaged AE
      • AE has successfully unengaged all EE
Changed:
<
<

  • AE can try to protect FE from engagement from EEs
  • Moving between
>
>

    • AE can help FE to unengage EE
Changed:
<
<

Interactions

>
>

Interactions

The interaction-rules are what the combatants can do to turn the tides of the battlefield.
Changed:
<
<

AE actions can be divided in the following basic groups.

>
>

AE interactions can be divided in the following basic groups.

Changed:
<
<

in a party, these additional actionsa are available:

>
>

in a party, these additional actions are available:

Changed:
<
<

  • form in formation
>
>

  • form in formation -

Eventlist

The event-rules decides what happens when the tides of the battlefield roll.
Deleted:
<
<

Eventlist

Added:
>
>

against wall

Added:
>
>

  • entity

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.3 - 21 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

      • Opposite to the prior
>
>

      • Free from EE in AE proximity
      • Unengaging EE interested in engaging AE is difficult

 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.2 - 21 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

There is a defininition list at the bottom if you dont understand the use of certain words.

In the text, AE will refer to the active battleentity, EE to an enemy battleentity, and FE to a friendly. When there is more than one involved, they will be marked AE#, EE# and FE# respectively.

Added:
>
>

A set of combat rules for handling of combat between three or more entities, they are also capable of handling combat between only two entities.

Added:
>
>

The idea is around a few basic concepts.

  • Each AE is either engaged or unengaged:
    • Engaged
      • In close proximity to EE not uninterested in dealing A meleeblows
      • AE can only engage one EE
      • AE can be engaged by several EE
      • A battleentity engaged ???
    • Unengaged
      • Opposite to the prior
  • AE can try to protect FE from engagement from EEs
  • Moving between
Added:
>
>

Interactions

Changed:
<
<

A combatant's actions can be divided in the following basic groups. Many of these are also formation actions.

  • attack -
    • enemy -
>
>

AE actions can be divided in the following basic groups.

  • engage -
Added:
>
>

    • flank -
Changed:
<
<

    • formation -
      • attack -
      • charge -
      • break formation -
  • guard - engage enemy when he reaches you
>
>

    • break - vs formations only
  • guard -
Changed:
<
<

    • cover -
>
>

    • cover - unleash weapon if EE moves
Changed:
<
<

    • active
    • guarding
>
>

    • active -
    • guarding -
    • drive back -
Changed:
<
<

Combatant statuses:

  • engaged -
  • unengaged -
  • grappled -
>
>

Eventlist

Formations

Changed:
<
<

  • formation -
>
>

  • formation - a number of combatants cooperating
  • battleentity - a combatant or a formation
  • add words you dont understand...
Added:
>
>


 <<O>>  Difference Topic BattleFieldDesign (r1.1 - 21 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

%META:TOPICINFO{author="PumaN" date="1043154240" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="DesignDocument"}% Temporary save.

Basic combat layout

A combatant's actions can be divided in the following basic groups. Many of these are also formation actions.

  • attack -
    • enemy -
      • attack -
      • focus -
      • charge -
      • grapple -
    • formation -
      • attack -
      • charge -
      • break formation -
  • guard - engage enemy when he reaches you
    • hold - unleash weapon when it has maximum effect
    • cover -
  • parry -
  • stand back -
    • fire/throw -
    • cast -
    • neutral actions -
  • withdraw
    • in order
    • retreat
    • flee
in a party, these additional actionsa are available:
  • protect - friend / formation
    • active
    • guarding
  • form in formation

Combatant statuses:

  • engaged -
  • unengaged -
  • grappled -

Definitions:

  • combat - an event where two or more combatants engage in open aggressive actions
  • combatant - any entity in close proximity to a combat
  • aggressive actions - some better name please?
  • party - two or more combatants arranged in a combatgroup
  • formation -

-- PumaN - 21 Jan 2003


Topic BattleFieldDesign . { View | Diffs | r1.24 | > | r1.23 | > | r1.22 | More }
Revision r1.1 - 21 Jan 2003 - 13:04 GMT - PumaN
Revision r1.24 - 20 Jan 2005 - 22:58 GMT - FreD
Copyright © 2001 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Tharsis? Send feedback.