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

[peter jurcovic <hhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dalibor Perković wrote:

> (the maximum is 599, i think). And yes, I'd like that very much. So, with a

well, as far as I can remember, I had 592 as maximum, so I told it was "at 
about 600".


> This is *almost* implemented in freeciv and civ2. Only, in civ units are 
> always
> destroyed when defeated. If the are able to retreat, this would be 
> self-solved.
> And then, you can repair them either by the usual way (wait) or send them to
> a city and spend resources (production) to repair them to their previous 
> value,
> or less if you have no time. Of course, these two possibilities exclude each
> other, so we have to pick one. Both are fine with me.

I still think replacement and elite replacement is a better system and even for 
freeciv.



> >3.    In battle, it's not necessary to have one unit completely
> >destroyed
>
> See above. Also, maybe it wouldn't be good to paste/copy this to civ, because
> it *is* a different type of game. PG is a battle strategy where you do nothing
> but fight, and this not-destroying slows it up just to a right proportion. 
> Inciv,
> I think it would slow the game up too much. So, AFAIC, unit that doesn't 
> retreat
> should be destroyed.

of course, I don't want to paste/copy PG to freeciv (but maybe... ;)


> >5.    Complex terrain advantages and disadvantages
>
> 100% aye. Especially infantry vs. mobile. Also, think about chariots in 
> mountains
> ambushed by simple 1/1/1 warriors. Or knights on a river ambushed by whoever.

Exactly.

> >7.    Morale and suppression
>
> Isn't what you described called "entrenchment" in PG1? If it is, maybe we 
> shouldn't
> copy it too much. While PG has 8 degrees of entrenchment, civ does have 2 
> (fortified
> and not fortified). I wuoldn't mind putting one or two more, but still, battle
> in civ should me much more dynamic than in PG in order not to draw your 
> attention
> away from other aspects of the game. And I always hated "rugged defence" 
> because
> it depends mosly on luck.

well, actually I mean this: when you attack a unit in PG, you get message "2 
destroyed,
5 suppressed" or maybe only "7 suppressed" and AFAIK this means that the morale 
points
of the unit was reduced.

The point about luck is completely right, I am always really driven mad, when I 
see the
differences in battle result just according to accident. I think accident is 
too strong
in PG.

And at that "drawing attention away from other aspects of the game": a player, 
who is
concentrating on economics can just ignore this small battle finesses. But it 
would be
correct, if his battle results would depend on his battle efforts.

>
> >8.    Rugged defence
>
> Yeah, isn't that supposed to be "entrenchment" bussines? As for morale, (ad.
> 7) if you have expirience, another such category would be confusing.

I think we can just ignore Rugged defence. It was also only for complex image of
PG system.


> >10.    Upgrading
>
> Yes, you can't have very expirienced units without upgrading. But the problem
> is in the game philosophy. In PG you could change the unit type and keep the
> same expirienced people because WWII lasted only 6 years. I'm not sure you can
> upgrade phalanx to musketeers in such a way that the new soldiers are 
> expirienced
> with muskets as they were with swords and spears. But, if we talk about some
> "military tradition" that enables, say, a city or a group of people to be a
> bit more effective in battle (because they have a 500 years long military 
> tradition),
> maybe it could get some justification. But we'd have to think of how to really
> do it because simply copying the PG system

But AFAIK we have here upgrading already - settlers to engineers. And that's 
not more
realistic than phalanx to musketeers.


>
> >11.    Number of unit types
>
> I have enough already, thanx :) Again, this goes into the difference in game
> philosophy. PG and civ are just different things.

as I have already said in one reply (sorry for that forward, but I forgot to cc
freeciv-dev), I would suggest small addings: "light tanks", "heavy tanks", 
"modern
tanks" would be nice. I would also be glad to see "flaks" and maybe some more. 
Civ2
introduced similar changes in infantry and some others.

>
>
> >12.    Units can be named
>
> Maybe. Would be nice, but not neccesary.

of course not neccesary, but this is extremely easy to add and extremely easy 
to just
ignore in the game if you don't need or like it. The default naming could be for
example: 1st Washington Rifflemen, 45th Berlin Howitzer, etc and nobody would 
mind it
(as I hope).