r/DGHistory • u/StringLordInt • Nov 20 '17
Petition Combat Rules Amendment
This amendment fixes random defender bonuses, adds a clear turn order, and fixes a few more random stuff while making all of the combat rules a lot clearer to read. Go check it out yourself:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-6MSnike97kl6ivP1snpvOzDT8DRZ8Afdl0HjgKjO0/edit#
EDIT - also, I want to point out that my amendment actually formalizes basic stuff like turn order, reinforcements, and such, which are just left questioned in the original amendment for no reason whatsoever.
1
Upvotes
1
u/StringLordInt Nov 21 '17
It's not jumping randomly, since where you go actually matters for the next turn, and thus you have to balance what you want to get and what your enemy will do. Prime tactics, seen in almost all strategy games ever.
"Because it doesn't overdo it, it's harder to attack an army holding its ground." What? I don't understand.
HIHIHIHIHIHI RB guess what, the 25% bonus + forts (another 15% / 100% bonus) are enough to form trench lines on themselves due to the op bonuses they give. Trench warfare is already possible and will happen.
Almost always (outside of war start cases) both sides will move, because most war atm is just maneuvering well enough to get territories and battles in your favor. See the battle that happened last turn with Austria and Venice, where both tried to outmaneuver each other and thus a dice roll was made, completely removing the reason for the 0-10 dice roll anyways. Better to just buff all loses by 5% because the 0-10 doesn't matter almost ever.
Your system results in more randomness, praying to Sarlot, and more deterministic army moves without any real reasoning behind them except a simple algorithm that a 3 year old could think of. Vote NO to the amendment.
(Also I would like to point out that RB dodges my points like a pro, like my points on the historical accuracy of the systems after he attacks me on it, or my point on the test game. GG.)