View Full Version : attacking a camped army

09-05-2005, 01:27 PM
Am I being thick? Is there anyway for a occupying power to attack an army camped outside a city, like a pre-emptive strike?

Great concept by the way! I can see my usefulness at work go right down the toilet

His Lord Uberdude
09-05-2005, 05:43 PM
Not yet. Mickey's supposed to be working on it. I wish we could attack waiting armies too. :slant:

09-12-2005, 02:27 AM
I also agree. That would also make having allies more productive. Right now allies really cant do anything except not attack there allies and plan where to go. If you could attack camped armies, your allies could do more to help you and you could do more to help your allies.

09-12-2005, 05:20 AM
Attacks should be possible anytime you're within a certain range of an enemy. This would make it possible to attack not only encamped armies, but those enroute to a destination.

However, in order to implement arbitrary "in the field" battles (or in blue water environs), the ability to route armies via arbitrary waypoints will be needed (I posted on this just yesterday in a reply somewhat OT for the thread; I forget where).

Hmm. Whokay. Mickey, I amend that other post. You're going to need "arbitrary waypoint" as a destination option, along with cities and homebases. "last waypoint," in the case that "arbitrary waypoint" is selected, would indeed BE the destination, in that case.

What's really cool about this would be that armies could change their nav on the fly (those routes would have to be editable, Mickey -- though I'd recommend not allowing changes to the next waypoint [an army's committed to whatever leg it's on]).

Also, force differentiation would be interesting here. Air forces could attack from a greater distance than infantry, for example. Either could do battle, but they have specialized potencies -- range being one difference between them.

It might be worth allowing the use of nuclear weapons for tactical purposes as well. If Stanley's comin' 'cross that great blue divide, if you can get a nuke within a couple miles of his pos. he's history. Of course, this would promote stategies of smaller armies -- more of 'em enroute. (we'd need great circle nav for nukes deployed from home bases -- but these would be strategic missiles, if they're ballistic. Hmm. Some kinks.)

And as to that -- I think that smaller armies should travel faster. That's ALSO realistic. I do think that if many smaller armies are traveling to one destination, their aggregate numbers should have a slowing effect on each's speed, though -- since such a deployment would clearly be identical with a case of deploying a single huge army. Troop sizes of "armies" are a bit of a naive approach (a necessary one just now -- I don't mean that pejoratively), and in a real world sending 100 1000-troop armies is the same thing as sending 1000 100-troop ones. A bit of an abstruse point I'd like to make more clearly, sorry.