Some reading I've been doing lately has indicated a common distaste amongst gamers for rock-paper-scissors style conflict resolution in war games or games with a war theme.
I now have a concern that my current conflict resolution mechanic might meet with this distaste. Please reply and let me know if you think it will or not.
There are 4 basic types of units in my game. Each unit has an advantage over 2 other types of units. When a player chooses to attack a unit, he does so with or without this advantage. There is an action point allowance system granting each attacker 3 action points to use across the map as he sees fit. To attack with advantage requires 1 AP, to attack without advantage requires 2 AP. (Also, attacking from a fortification always grants an attacker the advantage regardless of the unit types involved.) Outside of these rules, attacking another unit and spending the necessary APs always results in the destruction of the other unit.
As you can tell, my solution deviates from typical RPS implementations by allowing any unit to destroy any other unit, albeit at varying costs.
This conflict resolution is in the context of a somewhat abstract perfect information game. I'm looking for suggestions and criticism, but please keep in mind that I'm not going for "fog of war" here, and that perfect information and zero-randomness are essentially design requirements. I'm mostly concerned that players might dislike the similarity to RPS and wondering if there might be a more desirable solution.
More or less people retarded the RSP resolution and adjoined the streak of playing simulation action games and also using some RSP techniques, the units mentioned with different form of attacks are really superb.