Re: I want to kill option FUEL with prejudice
Thistle
and
that one time was enough for me.
kill it please
Thistle
"Markus Armbruster" <arm...@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87iqyig...@pike.pond.sub.org...
> The abstract idea of tying ships and land units to a logistical tether
> is sound, the concrete implementation as option FUEL is, in my not
> particularly humble opinion, crap.
>
> The last game I remember with FUEL enabled was in 2002. I'll never
> play game with FUEL enabled again. The code implementing it is known
> to cause permanent brain damage in undergrads. I've grown sick and
> tired of maintaining it.
>
> If you want me to continue to maintain it, you need to do two things:
> make the case for keeping it here, and demonstrate it's actually being
> used.
Plundaria
I would run a game with fuel but my co-deity would be most upset. He
keeps me out of trouble so fuel stays turned off.
As a player:
I like FUEL.
Nothing like picking off a fat tanker and leaving an invasion force
stranded at sea awaiting its' fate instead of dumping its' forces
ashore. Pesky pt boats are returned to limited range ventures instead
of ranging the ocean wide and free.
It helps keeps ships in balance, makes nuclear powered ships
meaningful, keeps the pt and dd from being uber ships.
What may fix it?
Implementation has problems.
I would like to see fuel removed and perhaps treated like petrol and
planes. Supply command would put at least one update of oil/petrol
aboard. An oil burning ship would have a petrol and/or oil hold. Each
update the ship burns x petrol / oil. Lack of such fuel means no
mobility gain.
Thoughts?
Bungholio
"Markus Armbruster" <arm...@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:87iqyig...@pike.pond.sub.org...
> The abstract idea of tying ships and land units to a logistical tether
> is sound, the concrete implementation as option FUEL is, in my not
> particularly humble opinion, crap.
>
> The last game I remember with FUEL enabled was in 2002. I'll never
> play game with FUEL enabled again. The code implementing it is known
> to cause permanent brain damage in undergrads. I've grown sick and
> tired of maintaining it.
>
> If you want me to continue to maintain it, you need to do two things:
> make the case for keeping it here, and demonstrate it's actually being
> used.
Count me in, as part of the death squad. Heck, I'd even be willing to
name a deity country as "FUEL" (vs Terminator) just to fire peeps up
to want to kill it.
-Bungy
Gregory E. Garland
> make the case for keeping it here, and demonstrate it's actually being
> used.
we should keep FUEL, but we should eliminate oil. empire must do its
part in combating global warming and the world's addiction to fossil fuels
by converting refineries to produce ethanol from excess food produced in
aggies, rather than producing petrol from oil.
Tom Johnson
"Plundaria" <ray....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4e2802a-6bd9-46dc...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
In over a decade of playing, I have seen it tried in 2 games, I think.
Both times it was disabled early in the game since it was buggy and
unusable. Like food, I think fuel adds a strategic and a tactical element.
Setting up a good distribution network and protecting your food
reserves makes food manageable (but still troublesome for novices).
If the hassle of maintaining fuel in ships and land units is properly
handled by auto-supply, then it still has a life. However, if the coding
effort to make this happen is so large that it will never occur, it should
be scrapped.
Tom
(Ski)