posted 08-29-99 06:27 AM ET        

"LoD posted 08-24-99 04:29 PM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of you that took time too dig through the config.txt file, probably noticed the higher/lower terrain bonus/penalty. Some of you may have started wondering why this option was left unused? IMO there is none! SMAC'ers! Unite in the quest for better quality of gaming, join this project!
The experiment will have two phases. First a debate on the optimum use of this option. After we reach a consensus, the people who volunteered in this thread will try the agreed setting on their machines.

Hence begins the
*****************************DEBATE*****************************
I propose one of the following settings:

Variant 1:
Attacking uphill: 10% penalty
Attacking downhill: 0% bonus
Pros: reflects the conditions when attacking an enemy on high ground.
Cons: May be considered too small of a penalty.

Variant 2:
Attacking uphill: -12,5%
Attacking downhill: +12,5%
Pros: is stronger the than Variant 1.
Cons: possibly too strong.

Other variants and/or comments about the proposed ones welcome!

LoD

PS. This is serious.

Aredhran posted 08-25-99 02:49 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm more in favor of option 1. I don't really think grunts or tanks attacking a target downhill have that much of an advantage (some expert might want to contradict me here - MtG ?).
As for the 10%, it needs testing (but I don't have time to do it)

Aredhran

Resource Consumer posted 08-25-99 04:14 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My view is that option 2 is way too powerful, so option 1 for me.
One possibly daft point. I suppose the code allows you to distinguish if the attacker or defender is an air unit in this case. Similarly, with different depths of water. You know me, and my Firaxis suspicion - if thjere's the potential for a bug, they'll find some way to get it in there.

LoD posted 08-25-99 10:54 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC: I checked it. Fortunately it does. Not only that, but the "Firaxians" (love that thread! ) were smart enough to make a restriction, so the difference of eg. 1 meter is not considered as an "Upphill Atttack".
So you two think that Variant 1 is optimum? Nothing less, nothing more? And the other posters? What do *you* think, guys (and gals of course)?

LoD

Resource Consumer posted 08-25-99 11:03 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LoD,
One way of scaling it would be to look at the protection that mountains gave defennding units in CivII and then set that as a maximum for sea level v the highest possible terrain.

Goob posted 08-25-99 11:17 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Option 1 is strong enough, but I also don't like giving a bonus for attacking downhill.
Option 3
Attacking uphill: 20% penalty

Goob

MoSe posted 08-25-99 12:20 PM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... I'm not an expert in war (I refused the military and did civil service instead).
But from what I remember of Mount Igman and Sarajevo, for instance, I don't see what's wrong with downhill bonus. At least against cities...

LoD posted 08-26-99 06:01 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forgot to tell you - the "penalty" actually turns out to be a bonus for the defender, so Goobs option is the best currently (IMHO).
RC: But that was +200%!

LoD

Resource Consumer posted 08-26-99 06:43 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LoD,
A bit large I agree. But imagine attacking from sea level to 3000 metres or whatever the highest id - that would seem justified. In practice you don't get such variance in adjoining locations.

Let's assume naively that we can apportion this in a linear way. Each metre of difference gives .07 per cent.

This would equate to a 100 metre difference making about 7 per cent. Your 10 per cent doesn't look to be too far out in that respect.

Aredhran posted 08-26-99 07:05 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goob: 10% might indeed be too little, but that requires testing, otherwise it's too arbitrary.
RC: You can't really compare altitude only, you must take into account the horizontal distance. The real problem is the slope, not the height difference.

If you're standing 2 meters away from me, but are 10 meters above me, I'm going to have a hard time shooting you, while you on the other hand will easily be able to drop a rock on top of my head.

If, on the other hand, you're still 10 meters above, but instead 20 meters away, it will be more difficult for you to get me, and easier for me to hit you.

Just my CHF 0.05
Aredhran

OlderWarrior_90/2 posted 08-26-99 07:49 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I vote for option 1 with a caveat...some armor may actually have a penalty for attacking downhill depending on how the turret is mounted. They can't depress their weapon enough.
Resource Consumer posted 08-26-99 08:01 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aredhran,
I take the point. I was, though, working from the basis that all attacks occur from an adjacent tile so the distance factor doesn't apply - height difference remains the only variable affecting the slope.

I would propose the defensive adjustment should be scrapped or reduced for ranged attacks.

Aredhran posted 08-26-99 08:33 AM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, thinking about it further, you *must* be next to your "victim" to attack it. Attacks from 2 tiles away are always artillery, and that benefits from its own set of attack bonus/penalties for altitude (25% per level of difference I think)
So my argument is moot as far as the game is concerned (but still holds in "real life" so please don't drop that rock RC )

Aredhran

LoD posted 08-26-99 02:32 PM CDT (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****NOTE---The original content of this post was removed due to the amount of errors that it contained - LoD ---NOTE****
RC: After fiddling with the scenario editor for ~15 minutes, I can safely state that the "Uphill" penalty is caltulated in the battle resolution variables at altitude differences =>1000m. In the light of this fact I propose to inrease the discussed parameter (maybe even by 50%?). However, as Aredhran said, this needs testing.

So, who wants to volunteer?

LoD

[This message has been edited by LoD (edited 27 August 1999).]
"