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

[peter jurcovic <hhg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>         So why have complex rules?
>         Civilization has always adhered to the KISS principle.  (Keep It
> Simple, Stupid).  It works.

well I'm affraid that my formulation was not absolutely correct, so I'll try to
make better one: if you are very talented in battle tactics, you can win the war
against enemy concentrated in economics - if the battle system is complex 
enough.
If you are very bad in economics, your chance is quite low. But there still is a
chance. The economics are probably the most important issue in long term wars, 
but
it won't win you a battle. And it should not win you a battle. And I'm affraid 
that
contemporary freeciv system is so simple, that only the quantity of your army
matters, not quality (if both enemies have same technologies). Experience 
points,
complex terrain advantages and disadvantages and more attack options would allow
developing army and tactics, where quality rules. And it is more realistic.

You say that civilization has always adhered to the KISS principle. I'm not so
sure. Did not civ2 bring more complexity and more unit types and more 
technologies
and more wonders, etc ?

And anyway, these changes are of that sort, which you could just ignore if you
would don't like them. If you'd concentrate just on economics and you'd be 
really
good at it, you could not care about experience of your units or some battle
finesses, because you'd have still enough cannon fodder to win the war (see the
"russion infantry tactics" or "chinese infantry harvesting" ;)

>
>         Too much choice is bad.  It leads to defocused game play, huge
> initial time investments learning the system, and small and lame
> distinctions which are meaningless in the real-world and abstract
> reasonings.

Ok, I agree in these points, but I think we should avoid trying to have 
unchanged
set of rules, because we want to play our Good Old 'Civ. Some progress is 
definitly
neccesary.

>
>         We don't need Terrorists -- Diplomats and Spies can Poison cities.
>         What units would honestly add something to the game?  Why do we
> need three types of Tank?  What would they do that Armor and Mechanized
> Infantry don't?

well, I'm sorry but I'm just trying to imagine, if you would have the same 
attitude
on more tank units if civ2 would introduce some. But anyway, I have to admit, 
that
having 3 tank types is such a stupid compromise, that leaving one tank type 
would
be probably better.