Attacking

[IMP1]

Should attacks be direct or indirect?

Direct: Units engage in a li'l skirmish and do damage to each other.

Indirect: One unit attacks the other, and the other does nothing.

[IMP1]

If we go for direct, there will obviously also be some units that attack indirectly.

[IMP1]

If we go for indirect, could we have a kinda x-com-style Overwatch (maybe called 'hold position'), whereby if you're attacked, you can attack back, at a slight attack/defence penalty?

Could we have a more specific hold position, where you select an arc in a direction (maybe a quarter of a circle in any 8 directions?) and if the unit appears in that you get no attack/defence penalty (maybe a bonus?) but if they appear anywhere else, you get the penalty (maybe a worse one?)

[IMP1]

I think we'll have a mix. Units being attacked will fight back (unless they've been told to Hold Fire or something (to conserver ammo)) if the attacker is in range of the defender.

And we'll have the specific hold position with direction thing.

[IMP1]

Because a unit can move and then attack, it seems silly to get an attack bonus on a unit you didn't know was there (was hidden in the fog)

Maybe have each player have a list of all enemy units they can see, and do something with that?

Or maybe have a player line up a units' actions all at once (like advance wars), to avoid this, and not be able to move, and the separatetly attack.

[IMP1]

done as of 75d1cff
just needs the damage to actually be done, and fancy animations, but that's a separate issue.