[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[Byron Ellacott]

Craig Huber wrote:
> Byron Ellacott wrote:

>> Or, as you said, defense won't get your opponent to 0 or fewer
>> hit points.  It's just not limited to D&D style combat - all
>> combat follows this property.

>> (If someone has a counterexample, I would love to hear it!)

> A couple of potential counter-examples:

> Victory through resource depletion I'm not a boxing aficianado, so
> I can't give a specific bout as an example.  However, if you
> picked any 10 boxing matches that went beyond round 10, I am
> fairly certain you would find at least one where the victory was
> credited to allowing the opponent to wear themselves out with an
> aggressive/offensive burst at the beginning of the match against
> effective defensive maneuvering.

This is probably the counter-example I was looking for: in D&D style
combat, a defense typically does not incur any cost to the
attacker. Where such a cost can be incurred, you can apply an
attrition strategy, either defensively or offensively.  In a
defensive attrition strategy, you allow the opponent to attack,
endeavouring to make the attack cost the opponent more than the
defense costs you.

Note that it's generally not a very sound strategy.  A failed
offense typically means you must draw back and prepare your next
attack, but a failed defense means you have lost.  The exception to
this is, of course, where a failed offense has drained the attacker
to the point that a counter attack has a high chance of success.

How many of those ten hypothetical boxing matches end with the more
defensive fighter eventually taking more of a beating than they can
stand up to?

  (It's still a valid strategy, but generally not a first choice:
  you engage in attrition when you are too well matched to win
  outright.  It's even a strategy that can win versus a stronger
  opponent, as long as that opponent does not engage in a full
  offense...)

> Victory through finding and exploiting a vulnerability/mistake I
> can recall a few football games (ritualized combat: pretty weird
> rules, tho, I admit) where victory was achieved by an effective
> defense exploiting the mistakes of the opposing offense.  Probably
> more than half of the climactic battles in cinema could be cast in
> this light as well, but that doesn't really count (I'd say Star
> Wars, but that was a case of an ineffective/inadequate defense...)

How well do those teams who specialise in effective defenses do over
the season?  This method relies on your opponent not attacking you
very well, which is a poor way to wage a (ritual) war, because
sooner or later an attack will succeed.  Better to have a strong
offense here, since then the ball will spend more time down the
other end of the field, and there's less time spent trying to ensure
your defense is strong enough to hold up.

--
bje
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev