[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Blitzkrieg patch

[Marko Lindqvist <caz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Reed Meyer wrote:

> >(see common/capstr.c for how to address)


> 
>      If you want, it can be "watered down" to a small extent by changing
> the definition to "adds 1 movement point to any land unit".  The current
> definition gives 2 movement points to units already having 3.  The change
> would only affect TWO units however (Armor and Mechanized Infantry), and
> therefore is rather minor.  (I originally gave +2 movement to Armor and
> Mech. Inf. because I feel +1 is a rather small bonus compared to their
> base movement (a 33% bonus compared to 100% for units moving normally just
> 1 tile per turn), and the "idea" behind Blitzkrieg was, after all, Panzer
> Tanks speeding across the North European plain, so tanks, if ANYTHING,
> should gain from "Blitzkrieg".  I considered giving percentage bonuses
> rather than +1 or +2, but that proved difficult to implement reasonably
> since at the end things have to be rounded to an integer.  Another
> possibility was to give the bonus only to units that could already move at
> least 2 per turn, but that weakens the Wonder too much.)

 Giving extra movement for those very powerfull attack units with only one
movement and weak defense makes really big difference to strategy. They
need less protection since they can attack from afar instead of waiting
next to city vulnerable to counterattacks. Also, this gives them
additional attacks ("OneAttack" flag might help here)


>      In any case, to sum up my argument, I don't think that Blitzkrieg is
> OVERLY powerful, at least not drastically more powerful than any other
> Wonder in the game.  You might want to see for yourself by applying
> the patch and playing, rather than arguing on theoretical grounds from
> looking at the definition of the Wonder.  Believe me, I too am concerned
> about game balance.  (I am also concerned about the proposed Fascism
> government type being too powerful.)

 Well, Ihave played solong with minimal set of wonders that I really can't
quickly test how it affects overall balance (should find out current
balance first...)

> winner" (to use a phrase from the lottery/sweepstakes world).  If Nation A
> and Nation B are equal, and Nation A suddenly got a great Wonder, well,
> it wouldn't be a bad thing unless that meant that the chance of Nation A
> winning the game suddenly jumped from 50% to nearly 100%.  If the chance
> of winning went from 50% to 51% or 52%, which is how I would characterize
> even the best actual Wonders in the game, then it's no big deal.  By this

 If players are equally powerfull and rather good players (so luck does
not have overly big part), almost any wonder can have very big effect to
results (if its only thing that differs...). Even with my weak subset of
wonders, its not uncommon that some wonder changes 51/49 to something 
like 75/25.

> experienced strategist.  Take for example, Jeff's example of Magellan's
> Expedition, which he feels "quite unbalancing".  This is an appropriate
> example because Blitzkrieg is the land-based equivalent of Magellan's.  Do
> you think that if Nation A's boats suddenly got to move 1 or 2 extra tiles
> per turn, its chance of winning would climb to anywhere near 100%?  I
> would argue that it's more like a 1%, possibly 2% at most, effect.

 Depends on world. With Magellan and pretty strong navy, you can destroy
basicly all enemy ships aproaching your island. Thay can't escape you and
you can probably escape them even with wounded unit.

>      Before I wrap up this message, I'd like to second a proposal made
> in some other thread about adding the "number of resources
> completed/remaining" for any Wonder being built, in the Wonders of the
> World screen (F7 key).  It would help take away some of the anxiety about
> "am I going to be able to finish this Wonder in time"?  (It can still be

 Should be ok as an option.



 Caz

--