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

[peter jurcovic <hhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

well, it's some time I have played freeciv last time (2 months I guess), but as 
far as
I can remember, you could repair unit anywhere with "s" command or in towns with
"s" command. Repairing in towns was much quicker. So in replacement and elite
replacement system, you could type "s" for replacement (or repair) and "Alt+s"  
for
elite replacement (or elite repair). I'm not sure about the amounts of 
production for
repairing, but it could be so, that elite repair would cost twice as many (for
example).

> 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.

when talking about morale points, I always have this scenario in front of my 
eyes: you
have infantry defending some position. You want to attack it, but you know that 
it has
high morale or strong will. So at first you'll siege it (that means you'll put 
your
units around it) and then you'll strike it with artillery or bombers (you don't 
have to
damage it hard, because the psychological effect would be strong enough). Then 
you'll
attack it and it would be not so strong as at the beginning and most likely it 
would be
glad to surrender. Just think about real world - this scenario is IMHO very 
realistic.

And this may be problem for developers, not for players. If you don't wanna 
cope with
it as a player, you don't have to. You just should take care about not getting 
into
siege.

>
> >> >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.

No, I have never fired a rifle, nor a pistol ;). But, the idea, that a certain 
amount
of experience is reduced when upgrading would solve this - I think it's not *so 
hard*
to learn how to use a new weapon and sure soldier would be a bit less 
experienced with
that weapon, but he will be still very experience (if he has been before).