quote: The primary intention of this combat system was to address two aspects of the ATT/DEF system-one, why doesn’t the attacker’s DEF or the defender’s ATT affect the outcome of the battle? And two, how can a Legion destroy, let alone damage, a Bomber? The heart and soul of LASS is that each unit is given 4 stats (land, air, sea, space), and these stats detail both the attack AND the defense of the unit against enemy units from the domain in question. For instance, a unit with LASS of 1/2/3/4 being attacked from the air would use “2” as its defense, and if that same unit attacked the sea it would use “3” as its attack. Note, however, that having a stat in a particular domain does not necessarily mean that the unit can attack that domain.

for more information visit the combat thread at
../../Forum28/HTML/000242.html?date=14:23

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

CLAS-D does include provisions for stacked combat, to merge this with new idea # 20.

A combat system, along with a resource management, reasearch and diplomatic model, is what defines a empire builder game.
Each of these four need to be addressed.

1) The fact that units that should be impervious to harm get damaged in combat with obsolete units;
2) Considering the strategic scope of the game, the "attacker" and "defender" are poorly defined. In battle the "attacker" and "defender" can be reversed. Yet in civ ATT/DEF are static;
3) Especially in SMAC, only weapons count for ATT while only armor counts for DEF, despite the obvious fact that weapons help "defend" (best defense a good offense, right?) and armor helps you to survive, thus enhances your "attack".

LASS solved this by removing attack & defense and replacing it with the "Strength" values of land/air/sea/space (the last not likely to get much use, but it might be needed). It solves all of the above with minimal changes to the basic unit design and IMHO is highly workable. The possible downsides:

1) Might make units of other domains too powerful. However, with SMAC style bombardment rules (extended to air units) they should be balanced.

2) Similar units will have the same numbers, and this will discourage attack, especially with numerous defender bonuses. This may not actually be a problem to some people. But with the reduction of defender bonuses seen in SMAC along with attacker bonuses (fast units in open), along with the the suggestion of an "attacker initative" (attacker gets a % bonus to 1st several rounds of combat, as he initially controls when/where battle takes place) this can be balanced as well. I'd also like to plug my idea for Random Combat Events, which can affect the outcomes of battles. Also it will encourage stacks to take out strong points, which is accurate IMHO.

3) Doesn't go far enough in changing combat system. Well I can't please everyone.

At it's heart, LASS/CLAS-D is a new type of UNIT design, not a combat model. But because of how radically it changes the combat system a new system must be built to go with it. LASS itself borrows other ideas for stacked combat and stacked combat is needed to make it work. CLAS-D is probably more accurately called LASS version 2.0 and has it's own stacked combat rules.

Another example, modern infantry can have shoulder-launched missiles that are ineffective in attacking aircraft due to range limits but tremendously effective in air defense.