[Freeciv-Dev] Re: more complex unit and battle system

["Marc Strous" <marc_strous@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

this is a response to Peter Jurcovic suggestions:

summary: some of them are really worthwhile but most are probably 
interesting to only part of the players, so i think should be optional
> 1.    Unit have experience points
i think the present system of "veteran" status is more suited to civ.
Compared to common war-simulation games, civ has a much longer turn length 
(i.e. years to decennia). So the people that make up the unit (let's say a 
legion) change every turn. So they don't have the hands-on battle 
experience. They just have the training passed on from their experienced 
predecessors (which upkeeps the veteran status).
Furthermore, because the unit makeup of your empire changes every few rounds 
as new techs are discovered (except in the final part of the game), most 
units only engage in combat 2-5 times. I reckon the veteran status gives 
enough dissolving power to deal with this issue.
> 3.    In battle, it's not necessary to have one unit completely
> destroyed
this would be implemented by giving defending units a chance of retreat

> 4.    Replacement and Elite replacement
Presently, veteran units remain veteran units when they are damaged and 
healed and i don't think this process costs. But what would the interesting 
consequence of changing this be for gameplay? In CTP you can decrease the 
upkeep of your units by lowering their maximum health, and this would have 
about the same effect (dedicating more or less of your production capacity 
to unit upkeep at moments of war or peace).
> 5.    Complex terrain advantages and disadvantages
this could be worthwhile.

> 6.    Defensive artillery and anti-aircrafts
this would be mainly to the advantage of attacking players, and would make 
warfare more dynamic. i would restrict it to very advanced units though
> 7.    Morale and suppression
is sort of present in the form of unhappiness to the people. what you are 
suggesting is that when you do something stupid (engaging into combat you 
can't win), your units will object by fighting bad. But if you do something 
stupid, you will lose the combat anyway, so what would be the difference?
Furthermore, in civ you don't know what you are fighting against because you 
can't see all units in the stack, so you are punished for something you 
couldn't know
> 8.    Rugged defence
i didn't understand this one
> 9.    Zones of control
this is a major tactics thing about warfare in civ - getting hold of the 
right tiles, i think to change this would be to decrease the impact of 
proper tactics, which i think is undesirable (except perhaps for beginning 
players)
> 10.    Upgrading
>
> In PG, in the beginning of every scenario you have the possibility to
> upgrade your units, which costs you some prestige. I see absolutely no
> reason why should we not implement it in freeciv. Naturely, freeciv has
> much, much important "time aspect" and it would be quite strange to have
> hyper-experienced armor units, which you would use from the utter
> beginning as some phalanx ;). There have of course to be some
> restrictions.
disband and use production so gained for new unit

> 11.    Number of unit types
is probably interesting to part of the civ-community, but i think it should 
be implemented as a modpack, because civ is not only about combat and this 
would shift the balance away from building a proper civilization, towards 
combat tactics.
> 12.    Units can be named
interesting. but there are many units, and personnally i already have 
trouble remembering city names.
marc
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.