> I. Advanced Strategy Options

A simplified version of this is an idea I've had in mind since before I started coding at all. Nothing so complicated as the kind of conditional strategy options you mention, but things like "Attack Most Agile, then Strongest, then Weakest," for example.

The complications are twofold: What if the primary attack targets of your characters are (1) Strongest, (2) Least Agile, and (3) Roberto, and all three of these people are the same one? It violates the rule where the three characters aren't allowed to attack the same one off the bat. So I have to figure out which of the three characters should move on to the secondary target.

Second, what if one character's attack list is "Strongest, then Most Agile, then Roberto," and this refers to the same character, who is, at this moment in the battle, dead? Who should be attacked next?

These are solvable problems, but I'm concerned that the complications will be...well, complicated. In terms of code, sure, but simplicity of gameplay as well.

It would, however, break the shell game. If you're always attacking the strongest guy, that means zeroing in on the guy with the super weapon. You could still try to play a shell game of sorts, by doing bizarre things like setting up a super-strong but undefended character, to lure attackers, while a guy with one less strength but a powerhouse defense mows everybody down. But I see this as a positive thing, because there's more calculation and less luck in formulating and defeating that kind of strategy.

So I'm still mulling over ideas. I'm increasingly sure that I'll be implementing *something* like this, but it's quite possible I'll wait until tournament #4, to give me the time to figure out what the right way to do it is.


At any rate, an open call for discussion: How much should extra hit points cost, to keep the game balanced?