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

[Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

        I don't remember whether you posted your original reply to the
mailing list, or as personal email.  So I'm replying now in a more personal
context.  This message can be reposted to the list.

On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 09:09:09PM +0200, peter jurcovic wrote:
> >         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.

        It doesn't take a complex battle system to make this possible or
likely.

        Multiple complex and interlocking strategies already exist.  I'm
not against complex battle systems including formations, terrain modifiers,
morale, special unit-versus-unit modifiers, experience, battle fatigue, and
a dozen other concepts.  Many of these already exist in limited forms in
the Civilization genre.  But none of the Civ line is primarily a wargame,
and thus simple battle systems will and have sufficed to keep most people's
interest, and generate some complex results along the way.
        It would be interesting to create an entirely separate game similar
to XCom: Ufo Defense or Heroes of Might and Magic where forces were placed
onto a separate, differently-scaled battle map, where the results of that
battle had a grander result in the game context.  But that's a different
game.

        SMAC does provide a richer experience in concentration of resources
along the research/military/economic lines.  But not all possible units in
their battle system are useful.  Civ1 and 2 preconfigure a lot of units
based upon some historical notion of whether or not they were ever a
significant advance.

> 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).

        Technologically deficient armies in the real world get beaten to
shreds.  Technologically deficient armies in Civ get beaten to shreds.
Technologically equivalent armies should have battles decided by other
factors.  In Civ, they do.

> 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.

        I understand.  I play TacOps regularly.  But complex battlesystems
imply longer resolution times, and that is *definitely* not something that
Civ needs.  Games are too long already.

> 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 ?

        Yes, but at high, abstract levels, and with good justification.
Paratroopers are qualitatively different than Riflemen.  They deserve a
gameplay justification.
        But this is also exactly why the much-discussed Air Transport unit
typically isn't justified -- you can already Airlift units between cities
on different continents, and Paratroopers have an Airlift-like movement
mode intended to eliminate the need for a specific air transporter.
Fundamentally, other game structures have taken away any application such a
unit could have.

> 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" ;)

        Admittedly, a complex engine can spawn and support games which do
not use all of that complexity.  I really don't like the answer "ignore
them if you don't want them", though.
        A good game will use most/all facets of the engine available to it
in interlocking ways.  And making facets either too specific or too general
will destroy any chance of ever creating useful AI players.

> >         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.

        Right.

> >         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.

        I'm not a Civ2 purist, necessarily.  I would like to see Trade
Routes and some other game concepts reworked.  But I see how well the
simple systems have worked, and believe that accessibility and ease of
learning is part of why the Civilization name has been such a sucess over
the years.
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And they said work hard, and die suddenly, because it's fun."
        -Robyn Hitchcock.