Maelstrom wrote:
4) Deterministic battles. When you attack another unit, you should know the immediate result (either from simplicity, or even if battle is complicated if you can easily check what would happen). I think this adds a lot to MA, as once again, it adds strategic value to your decisions. If chance plays into it, its difficult to plan a few turns ahead, as a little bit of bad luck can change the face of the game.
Actually now that you mention it, I believe Stars! had a deterministic battle system. You could download tools to predict the results of battles between fleets for you. I don't think there was any random factor. When two fleets fought, the server would place each fleet on a 2D grid, move ships and fire their weapons at targets based on whatever orders they were under (attack warships, attack non-warships, retreat, etc.) I don't believe there was any random factor in how ships moved, what they shot at and what damage was done.
Anyway, I concede that for a SimulTBS game you'd probably have to drop the tactical level for the most part. The game would have to rise more to the operational/strategic level where units are moved around as combat groups and fleets...but I still would rather see the map be hex-based with varying terrain that effects movement (and combat) than just a Risk style set of oddly spaced territories. But it actually isn't that big of a deal one way or the other.
Units could stack (maybe enforce some limit) and generally move one space at a time. Battles are abstracted and occur whenever stacks of opposing units attempt to enter the same space. Some units (like artillery and aircraft) can lend support in these battles and/or damage enemy units/resources from a distance.
Most ground based units would move at a rate of 1. Certainly there could be units that move quicker. Roads, rivers, terrain should play a factor and units that transport other units is pretty cool.
But airbourne units could be introduced.
Yes, the secret allies concept is definately cool. That could be done even with a lot of popular tabletop wargames like Risk or Axis & Allies ("Oh...you're invading Siam? Well...That's my Secret Ally! Ha!")
Really, it boils down to over all simplicity, secret allies system and no random events (beyond the secret allies). The latter I don't care that much about. Some level of randomness is okay with me on the condition that all random events are determined by the server during results calculation and not on the player's computer while he is playing his turn. I've seen too much cheating when players can play, close and replay their turns until they get favorable results.
Another important MA concept is Guerrilla forces and invading a neutral territory drives it into the enemy camp. Questions have been raised in this and those other threads about who would control those guerrillas and which player would get to "own" the invaded territory.
Two possible answers:
1) No one. Neutrals remain neutral and are controlled by an AI to defend itself as best it can. This is what the Warlords series of games did. If someone attacked a neutral city, it would defend itself with whatever it had and if it repulsed the attack, it would start producing more units to bolster its defense better against future attacks.
2) As someone else mentioned, all neutral territories could have two "favored" allied camps. If it is invaded, it goes to one of those two camps. This opens up some more possibilities. Neutral nations could have a "friend/foe" rating for each player and even with other neutrals. If you invade a neutral, it's friends dislike you more and its enemies like you more. If the rating a neutral nation has for one of the players gets so high or so low, it could spontaneously declare itself in one camp or another. This way, invading neutral nations could have ripple effects in the game. Of course, the more "realistic" this system, the less simple and since simplicity is the rule of the day, it is probably right out.