[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Getting rid of Isotrident

[Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

scripsit Daniel L Speyer:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Thanasis Kinias wrote:

> > 1) Accuracy -- having a BTR-style armoured personnel carrier for `alpine
> > troops' (hires) or a SAM system for `howitzer' (cevo) will immediately
> > disturb someone who knows what alpine troops or howitzers are in Real
> > Life (tm).
> > 
> 
> Well, I've tried to do this, especially with Lexxy, but some things are
> just difficult.  Mechanized Infantry, for example, looks just like Armor
> in the real world (tm).  (Yes, I actually used google image search to find
> this out).  

Modern mechanized infantry combat vehicles (Bradley, BMP, Marder, etc.)
do look rather like tanks when scaled that small.  However, earlier APCs
are unmistakable.  The current cevo icon isn't bad, BTW.  Good models
would be M113-style (like cevo), BTR-60 (like the hires Alpini), or a
halftrack. 

> As for the cevo SAMwitzer, I figured I had to use a c-evo sprite, and they
> don't seem to have real howitzers.  Missles and shells aren't that
> different.

I would stick with Lexxy's howitzer, given the options.  

> BTW: what are Alpine Troops?  Do they use skies?  If so, why do they get
> movement bonuses in jungles?

`Alpine Troops' is a term for mountain troops (from the Italian `Alpini'
IIRC).  In some armies they did use skis, and their skis are their most
recognizable attribute.  What is more important is that their equipment
was lightweight, and they tended to rely on pack animals more than
mechanized transport.  For example, artillery could be disassembled into
mule-loads, rather than needing tractors.  That's why they ignore
terrain.

> > 2) Not looking `cheap' or cartoony.  A very stylized look is good for
> > clarity's sake, and may be preferable from a usability standpoint.
> > However, if people don't get past the first impression, the usability is
> > wasted.  In this respect, the terrain and the Explorer and Settler icons
> > are most critical.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, maybe I should give cevo the engels settlers then, they wouldn't look
> very out-of-place and what we have now is hideous (IMO).

IIRC hires's wasn't too bad.  I don't care personally for the engels
style.

> I would agree that cartoony cheesiness is bad (I take my gaming
> seriously!) and personally, I don't like cevo very much.  I would say,
> though, that the first impression lasts longer than the first move.  The
> early cities (small and medium, european and classical) are important, as
> are warriors, phalanx, archers, horsemen and chariots.

Ja.

Now that I've examined cevo more closely, the naval units and the
infantry types are big problems.  There's nothing to show distinguish
Riflemen, Marines, and Partisans.  They're not identical, but they are
interchangeable.  The same goes for Ironclad, Destroyer, et al.

Also, the `stealth fighter' icon is an SR-71 -- a non-stealthy unarmed
reconnaisance aircraft.

-- 
Thanasis Kinias
Web Developer, Information Technology
Graduate Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul