And it just so happened: The last post can also be thrown away.
The whole concept of artillery and X-ray weaponry, has been viewed from another perspective.
[Effective Range]
In combination with yes/no.
Artillery suffers range reduction when lobbing over something. And is thus cheaper than X-ray weaponry of the same range. X-ray goes straight through.
Both are more expensive than normal weapons. But will also be bothered by terrain types, when dealing with the wrong type, just like normal weapons. X-ray suffers more from this than artillery. In flat terrain, artillery can lob over "wrong" terrain. But then it suffers range again. While penetrating weapons (the third kind), will not suffer range in that regard.
I have this RPS system now in these 4 types. And I am very happy about it. There is a 5th and 6 type. When combining penetrating abilities with artillery or X-ray.
Now, the calculations are something that players will not see.
And I hardly doubt it that any one would care. All that players want to compare are numbers.
Here is the list of the 7 "long ranged" cannons. That all cost exactly the same:
-Range 11, normal.
-Range 7, ignores all terrain types, even the end target.
-Range 8, ballistic level 1, when needed; a range of 7. Can ignore all terrain types at level 0, but not the end target.
-Range 6, ballistic level 4, when needed; a range of 2 to 5. Can ignore all terrain types at level 0 to 3, but not the end target.
-Range 6, X-ray level 2. Cannot ignore terrain types.
-Range 5, X-ray level 3. Cannot ignore terrain types.
-Range 3, X-ray level 8. Cannot ignore terrain types.
All that remains for me is to design 7 different maps that each will support one of the above weapons to a maximum. And the RPS in this would be fulfilled.
But it can also be done the other way around. Designing a map first. Than looking at key points. And design units that are most optimal there.
I need to calculate "ignoring terrain types" in combination with the ballistics or X-ray. But that is something for this evening.
I can leave it up to my right hand man. To crack the concepts that I think of.
He came up with this idea of an artillery torpedo. Meaning that this torpedo only can hit water units. Yet is able to be lobbed over terrain.
Not only that, but the idea exists that a lobbing weapon, has influence of the terrain that it is barely going through while being lobbed. You know, the hilltop. If a projectile is being lobbed over a hill with no problems, then there is a problem when a tree is standing there.
By my last juggling of rules, this torpedo artillery would have a factor of at least 2 compared to normal water weapons. Yet is not being able to be lobbed over a hill if it doesn't consists of water.
Now, I compared this situation with the most extreme one of them all. The artillery that can't hit one of the 7 terrain types. Yet it does cost money. This makes no sense.
So while integrating the artillery into the basic terrain was initial a good idea. When tested by making the most extreme examples, it doesn't work.
***
Artillery has to become an independent factor.
The rules remain? the same:
-Artillery lobs over terrain.
-Artillery lobs over higher terrain, depending on the power.
-But has influence of the terrain that is barely scratched.
My last suggestion that I got was that I have to consider a height of 1. To be an entire new play field. But as height increases, the chance of this being a play field reduces exponentially. Not only that, but going back to the basic imbalance that it had.
If I where to discard the idea of different power levels in the artillery. Than I am also getting rid of the third rule. And the last part of the second rule.
The only plus side is that I am back to the basic factor of 2. And thus the costs increase is +50% for these weapons.
The rules are now:
-Artillery lobs over terrain.
-Artillery lobs over higher terrain.
The list consists of:
Normal: 1,0
Artillery: 1,5 (Mountain crawlers can hide 100%)
Super: 1,4
Super Artillery: 2,1 (Mountain crawlers can't hide)
Torpedo: 0,2
Artillery torpedo: 0,3
The idea of different power classes was cool and all. But perhaps this is the better path to choose. It also saves another A5 of explanations in the manual.
So, all the previous posts in this topic about artillery, written by me that is, are to be considered discarded.