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

["Dalibor Perković" <pdalibor@xxxxxx>]

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

And I'm still not sure :) And then, how would you pay for it? In ca$h or in
production? (for example, you put a damaged unit in a city and then choose if
you wand an elite or just replacement, and it takes different amounts to 
reinforce
it. But this seems a bit complicated). If, on the other hand, you can repair
a damaged unit imidiately, on the field, simply by giving some cash, I think
it would be overmilitarazing the game. The in-town repair and a somewhat slower
battling is more to my taste.

>> >7.    Morale and suppression

>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.

Doesn't "suppressed" mean "pinned down" which doesn't neccesarily have to do
anything to morale? (it might, but doesn't have to) And influenced only by 
firepower
and, say, quality of cover. But anyway, it's still too complicated for me to
put it in a game that has so much other interesting features to be bothered
(or annoyed :) by.

>> >10.    Upgrading

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

Not more realistic, but very different in effect. Or, maybe, yes, more 
realistic?
Think. On one side you have settlers who have all their life been digging things
up (sort of), and now they only get a better machinery to do basically the same
thing. On the other hand, using a new weapon is very much different. Have you
ever fired a rifle? Not a pistol, a rifle?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm definitely *for* upgrading. Only maybe units 
shouldn't
keep *all* of their expirience, but, say, 1/3 to 2/3 of it, it's arbitrary.
It would still have lot of effect, and it would be much less unrealistic.

>> >11.    Number of unit types
>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.


Flaks definitely. About more tanks, well, I don't need that, but could stand
2-3 new types. But no more. I'm having trouble with this already :)

>> >12.    Units can be named
>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

Then we agree :)
      ?
     /|\                           Izitpajn
    /?|\?                       pdalibor@xxxxxx
      |

--
Besplatni e-mail - http://www.iskon.hr/mail/