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

[peter jurcovic <hhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Begin Message ---

To:	Marc Strous <marc_strous@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Freeciv-Dev] more complex unit and battle system
From:	peter jurcovic <hhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:59:09 +0200

Marc Strous wrote:

> 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
>

that's also what I said

>
> >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.

well, in profesional army soldiers can fight for - let's say - over 30 years. I
agree that in times when you use legion are turns much longer, but in present
time they're only a year. But I think that we should let here reality a bit
aside and think about its playing aspect - I think we should concentrate on how
good will it be in the game and play. I personally would find it better. And
anyway, you were talking about reality aspect - what's so real about the fact,
that you have veterans just as they leave the barracks? I would say, that the
most real would be if you would be not able to build army units without
barracks and barracks would give you only very small experience


>
> >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

ok, I think I can agree with this, thought I think we should have here 3 cases:
one unit is completely destroyed (very rare), both units are damaged and remain
on their positions (common) and one unit retreats (rare).

>
> >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).

I think interesting and important consequences would be reducing experience
points of units of the player, who has not enough money for elite replacements.

> >
> >5.    Complex terrain advantages and disadvantages
> this could be worthwhile.

that's also my idea

>
> >
> >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

I agree with the restriction, but defensive artillery would mean also advantage
for defensive players.

> >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

I think my point was a bit different: my idea was, that every single unit has
also some morale points (not the citizens or nation itself). This has *strong*
reality aspects: it's different, when you just attack some infantry unit and if
you siege them and strike them with artilleries and bombers first. I think
there are battles, which were won/lost just according to high/low morale of
armies.

> >8.    Rugged defence
> i didn't understand this one

never mind, this point was just for complex look at PG system.

>
> >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)

I think I agree that it would reduce the impact of proper tactics. I also
mentioned there, that for changing ZOC rules we would have to take the look at
the world in bigger detail (what we are probably not going to).

> >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

but if you would have system, where experience would be gained in battle and
not in barracks, you would be not happy to disband your precious well-trained
units. And this has reality aspects.

> >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.

"This would shift the balance away from building a proper civilization towards
combat tactics." I just absolutely cannot agree with this point. You can have
complex rules in combat, but the war would be (and in real world always is)
won/lost *just* according to your *economy*.

My suggestion in adding more unit types can be compared to difference between
civ1 and civ2. As far as I can remember, in civ1 you have only one artillery
unit, only one infantry unit, etc. Civ2 added alpine troups, marines,
partisans, paratroopers. I suggest to add at least "light tank", "heavy tank"
and "Challenger (or contemporary) class tank".

I agree that more units belong to modpacks.


>
> >12.    Units can be named
> >
> interesting. but there are many units, and personnally i already have
> trouble remembering city names.

I have similar trouble ;), but I think there is no reason, why naming units
could be not an option.


    -peter

--- End Message ---