[Freeciv-Dev] (no subject)

["Dalibor Perković"@complete.org]

<pdalibor@xxxxxx>
Reply-to: pdalibor@xxxxxx
To: Marco Colombo <marco@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:55:06 met
X-User-Info: 195.29.229.42
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: more complex unit and battle system
Resent-to: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Resent-cc: 
Resent-from: pdalibor@xxxxxx
Resent-date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:57:14 met
Message-id: <39ae3a0a.46cb.0@xxxxxx>


>The argument was the Pistol vs. Rifle one... what's the 
>difference? (in the context, of course... don't tell me about 
>weight) B-)

I think we lost the thread here :) Well, anyway, regardless, I meant like if
a unit is expirienced while fighting with pistols, it means they are able to
*use* pistols, as well as *avoid* someone using pistols on them. When they 
upgrade
to rifles (for example), they can excersize *using* rifles during training all
they want, but they will not be as expirienced as with pistols  - untill someone
uses rifles on them, and they return to the previous amount of expirience 
*after*
they learn to *avoid* rifle fire as well. I don't think barrack training would
be enough here.
As for my question about difference between firing a pistol and a rifle, the
point is there's much difference in handling it. Not same kind of fight, not
same kind of strategy & tactics when fighting with the previous or the latter.
(Example: rifle is a long-range and more powerful weapun, but if you sneak 
behind
a corner having a rifle in your hand, and encounter an enemy holding a pistol,
well, you get the idea. Same goes for forest, trenches, rocks...)
We could discuss the expirience as "exp while fighting against pistols" and
"exp against rifles", and, generally, "exp against type of unit" instead od
"exp *of* unit", but I think that appeared in this thread, and was unanimously
and justly declared too complicated.

>Settlers are involved into battles... I always kill any enemy 
>settler I'm able to. If a settler wins a battle, it should get 
>a chance to become veteran... they can't attack, but they can 
>defend better...

I agree with this. We only discussed this in different context, as an example
for upgrading. Not important for this discussion.

>There are different issues here, maybe I lost some context...

>1) veteran status vs. experience points
>2) if upgrading of some kinds of unit make sense (e.g. Settlers)
>3) what happens with the 1) (whichever you choose) when you upgrade
>
>My answers:
>1) I like xp more. 

So do I.

>You get 1 xp out of every 1/10 of your (max) hp you loose
>in a battle (many early units have just 10hp, it means 1xp out 
>of 1hp) [...math deleted...].

I'm not sure this is good. For example, suppose infantry (any) defeats armor
and gets no losses. In your system, it gets no expirience. But I think that
it has gained very valuable expirience. They may have gotten lucky this time,
but now they know, to simplify, "what to do next time". Moreover, if they never
encountered armors before, they have now gained the knowledge "how it is when
the meat-mincer is headed towards you", and will certainly be less frightened
next time. This *is* an approximation, but I think it can be considered a good
one. I think the amount of expirience should only relate to stats (including
expirience) of a defeated unit. There should also be a possibility for a 
defeated
but not destroyed unit (see thread on retreating) to get some expirience.

>2) units can be upgraded - gold can buy both new weapons and 
>new training

Yes and maybe. For a complete training you *need* to spend some time in the
battlefield. For a partial training you don't.

>3) well, in the xp case, I'd say that the xp_penalty should be 
>a server option (or rule, I let developers state the best), 
>just like xp_aging, BTW. In my very personal taste, I like the 
>idea of having xp_penalty=0 (when you upgrade you don't loose 
>any experience).

Well, I woulnd't :) See below.

>When the unit is ready, men inside it are already skilled.
>They know how to use a rifle, for example. But they have no 
>battlefield experience. And that matters.
>- when you upgrade, you give men *both* new weapons *and* 
>training. They'll know how to use their weapons right after 
>the upgrade. But they'll keep all their battlefield 
>experience.                   ^^^

Not all. Some, yes, maybe even most of it, but not all. The history is full
of examples when armies were given new weapons and then they made complete fools
of themselves once they reached the battlefield. And then, haven't you heard
of the term "testing new weapons on the battlefield", to see how it *really*
works out of the laboratory or testing ground. Of course, this could count only
for "prototype" units, but again, if you're expirienced in battle, that means
that you are "one with your weapon". You trust it and know it (some say you
even love it, which is not a neglectable category), because your skin depends
on it - if you're still alive, it means it's done its job well. And to trust
and know a new weapon someone gave you, you really have to test it in 
real-fight.
It's your own skin that counts after all.

>Anyway, since I'm in favour of a tunable parameter for this, 
>you may just choose a different setting for your games B-). 

Now this is a matter of its own. Should you have a different setting for every
detail? Personally, I'm in favour of a few various set of rules, but not too
many. Because if you *can* change every parameter independant of others, then
it just becomes a matter of how good are you at this particular setting, are
you used to it and how much do you have to adjust to it in relation to the 
settings
you usually play with...

Huh... A long response... But an interesting discussion, for me at least :)
Greetings.

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