[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8483) killstack and damage patch

["LoboGris" <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8483 >

Per I. Mathisen wrote:

>Yes, and every time I've been against it. But I will try not to be
>unreasonable. Please give some arguments why this option is important and
>should be added. (Note: I will not be convinced merely by 'civ3
>compatibility'.)
>  
>
I think the only reasons one can give is taste and experience. 
Personally, I never liked the killstack, so I always apply my patch and 
disable it. And there are more players that share the same taste. And my 
large experience with a disabled killstack (the first time I offered my 
patch was more than two years ago) showed me that it works very well and 
gives the posibility of a flexible siege without having to construct 
fortress (the fortress can be constructed further in order to obtain 
extra defense points). See also the following paragraph, where I mention 
longer battles.
I also want to declare that I had never played the commercial civs, so I 
don't know their features. I have only played with freeciv, since long 
time ago. :-)

>(damage option)
>
>This just sounds silly. What use is there for this option? Who will code
>the necessary math for unit_win_chance() so that it works with this
>option? Let alone answer the question: what does unit_win_chance()
>really return when this option is in effect?
>  
>
See the code for details on how this option works. I think this is the 
better way of understand this option. The function unit_versus_unit(), 
which is the only function modified by the option "damage", is 
independent of unit_win_chance(), so I don't understand the incidence of 
this last function in the first. The only thing that damage does is to 
limit number of rounds in the unit_versus_unit() algorithm, so it raises 
the posibility of both survive (but not neccesary leads to both survive, 
this depends on the comparative power of both units and the hit points 
that had before combat). This is the only reason of this option. This 
gives the emulation of longer battles. No more, no less.
Anyway, in my experience with both killstack and damage, I had 
progressivelly abandoned the use of this option, because disabling 
killstack by itself leads to a similar mechanism, but in a multiple 
units basis instead of only one. But I have experimented a lot with this 
option and its leads to a game with the following characteristics:

1) killstack is enabled (the default for freeciv, and recommended for 
this game)
2) units has to be more build cost, because they are more durable.
3) You have to manage less units (more easy to organize them when you 
have a big empire)

So, experimenting with damage is interesting and could be interesting 
for other players. Thats the reasons I presented it, but I'm not 
specially interested in its acceptation. But I am really interested in 
an optional killstack (the patch can be easily divided).

Note also that the #3 can be simulated by units that behaves like 
transporters, but does not participate itself in the battle...or may be 
yes: think of a unit named "leader", that "transports" a lot of 
heterogeneus units, but differs with a normal transporter in the fact 
that the contained units participate in the battle, and the is a minor 
chance than the "leader" could be destroyed. In that case, all the 
contained units lost its unity and have to be managed separatelly, with 
the raise of an extra organization trouble for the player.

LG