wish list
Gregg Rothermel
>Do you know of a bug in the Empire code? Are there any features which
>you would like to see added to Empire?
I like everything on the wish list except the following item,
and wonder if we could have some discussion of it:
> Cut the range of forts in half.
It seems to me the fort and ship ranges are quite well balanced now.
Weren't ship ranges cut down some time back in order to achieve this
balance? (I thought I read that in some empire docs somewhere, but
I may be imagining it.)
Cut fort range in half and we'll have BB2s outranging forts.
Realistically, land guns can fire as far as ship guns (right?)
- but of course realism isn't the question so much as playability.
Where playability is concerned, I like the current balance.
Gregg Rothermel
Computer Science Department
Clemson University
Sean Eddy
>> Cut the range of forts in half.
>It seems to me the fort and ship ranges are quite well balanced now.
>Weren't ship ranges cut down some time back in order to achieve this
>balance? (I thought I read that in some empire docs somewhere, but
>I may be imagining it.)
>Cut fort range in half and we'll have BB2s outranging forts.
>Realistically, land guns can fire as far as ship guns (right?)
>- but of course realism isn't the question so much as playability.
>Where playability is concerned, I like the current balance.
Agreed. The proposal was (I'm responsible for it, I think) to cut both
fort and ship gun ranges down by about 1/2. This is to compensate for
the other proposed change, that missile ranges should be scaled down
by 1/2.
The current *ratios* between ships, guns, and missiles seems correct
from a playability standpoint; land-based guns have a slight edge over
naval artillery, and missiles have about a two-fold edge over both.
The overall goal is to make naval combat more playable, opening up
more free navigation by making interdiction on the high seas more
localized. Riverworld is currently in the throes of high-tech
amphibious warfare, and we're all rapidly becoming aware that missiles
are far too powerful and navies are sitting ducks. (See also, the
aegis anti-missile point defense proposal.) Missile ranges have got to
come down, and it seemed both worthwhile and consistent to scale the
gun ranges down at the same time. It's worth discussing though; I do
like the security of having my coasts covered by overlapping fortress
fields of fire, and that'd be hard to achieve at 1/2 the range.
- Mirkwood
--
- Sean Eddy
- MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, England
- s...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
Don Murray
Here's my wish for discussion.. but I have a feeling
people won't like it.
IDEA: limit unmodified attack/defense strenghs / sector
i.e. make the maximum unmodified attack strength
at some threshold like 400, after that, adding more
mil wil not increase the attack strength... a modificatino
could be that this threshold changes with tech.
RATIONALE:
Just pumping more men into a sector should not be the
answer to reducing casualties. Against well prepared
positions, if you charge in twice as many infantry,
you would probably receive almost twice as many
casualties, whereas in the current sitaution, you
could expect to reduce your casualties from heavy
to negligible.
Discussion:
Ideally, you would limit the overall # of military
attacking... before multiplying in the unit attack modifier.
This would increase the benefits of arty and air suport
on well defended areas... it would also give more reason
to develop a mix of defensive and offensive units.
Currenlty, defensive units are not very attractive, because
the attacker can mount such overwellming odds that even
very strong defensive units will be overpowered.
I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this.
(Don, cowering in his sort-of-flame-retardent underwear)
do...@mda.ca
Robert S Orman
I agree with Gregg's comment. When I was looking through this list I
had almost exactly the same thought - everything here looks great except for
cutting fort firing ranges in half.
If all this stuff gets implemented, I am going to be in heaven...
Steven White
Sean Eddy <s...@al.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Agreed. The proposal was (I'm responsible for it, I think) to cut both
>fort and ship gun ranges down by about 1/2. This is to compensate for
>the other proposed change, that missile ranges should be scaled down
>by 1/2.
And units as well? Might that wind up having some land units having a
range < 1? What is it for first artillery? Range 4 (/2 to make real
range) * tech factor? So need tech 100+ to even be able to hit the next
sector most of the time?
As well, it would also mean you'd need a lot more arti units to cover
a front, unless they can have a mission to move closer to the action, and
fire? (instead of mission to engage in hand to hand combat)
And how will this affect most defenses, given that the arti is rather
less overlapping?
Will it also require that fort ranges be changed to be slightly greater
at lower techs? (Low tech forts will be rather innefective with 1/2 range?)
And on a proper green note, will this result in greater polution due
to extensive mining of mid oceanic waters?
Steven White, Furrym * <- Warlord bait .sig at 50 parsecs
Gregg Rothermel
> Cut the range of forts in half.
In response to which, I wrote (excerpted):
>It seems to me the fort and ship ranges are quite well balanced now.
>Cut fort range in half and we'll have BB2s outranging forts.
>......
>Where playability is concerned, I like the current balance.
And Sean Eddy (Mirkwood) responded:
>Agreed. The proposal was (I'm responsible for it, I think) to cut both
>fort and ship gun ranges down by about 1/2. This is to compensate for
>the other proposed change, that missile ranges should be scaled down
>by 1/2.
>The current *ratios* between ships, guns, and missiles seems correct
>from a playability standpoint; land-based guns have a slight edge over
>naval artillery, and missiles have about a two-fold edge over both.
>The overall goal is to make naval combat more playable, opening up
>more free navigation by making interdiction on the high seas more
>localized. Riverworld is currently in the throes of high-tech
>amphibious warfare, and we're all rapidly becoming aware that missiles
>are far too powerful and navies are sitting ducks. (See also, the
>aegis anti-missile point defense proposal.) Missile ranges have got to
>come down, and it seemed both worthwhile and consistent to scale the
>gun ranges down at the same time. It's worth discussing though; I do
>like the security of having my coasts covered by overlapping fortress
>fields of fire, and that'd be hard to achieve at 1/2 the range.
This sounds more reasonable to me; and the missile/naval combat
argument makes sense. Though don't forget we would have to
reduce land unit (artillery) range and torp range too (right?).
It might be unpleasant to implement, but perhaps adding another
deity-settable multiplier that would apply to all gun ranges
would let us experiment with the 1/2 range Sean proposes,
as well as some others like 3/4. And then we can fall back
on the current ranges if the shorter ones don't work out.
In theory we could get really fanciful (I only say this because
I don't expect to code it) and have separate fort-range, arty-range,
torp-range and ship-range constants and try different combinations -
though that sounds even worse to code and probably isn't necessary if
we agree the current ratios are nice.
Other opinions???
Jorge Diaz
>>Agreed. The proposal was (I'm responsible for it, I think) to cut both
>>fort and ship gun ranges down by about 1/2. This is to compensate for
>>the other proposed change, that missile ranges should be scaled down
>>by 1/2.
>It might be unpleasant to implement, but perhaps adding another
>deity-settable multiplier that would apply to all gun ranges
>would let us experiment with the 1/2 range Sean proposes,
>as well as some others like 3/4. And then we can fall back
>on the current ranges if the shorter ones don't work out.
This sounds best to me. The biggest problem, IMHO, is that what
might be considered 'too big' a range in one world is just fine
in another world that's four times the size. Remember, all games
have different world sizes. So, why not have a deity-settable
multiplier, that counts against the current 'standard' ranges?
Then, if a deity is running a game on a small world, he can reduce
the multiplier. If he's running a huge 512x512 game, he can set them
at 3x.
--
Jorge Diaz | "We all dream a lot; some are lucky, some
Georgia Institute of Technology | are not. But if you think it, want it,
Office of Information Technology | dream it, then it's real....
cco...@phantom.gatech.edu | You are what you feel."
KEVIN M. ROBERTS
In a previous article, cco...@phantom.oit.gatech.edu (Jorge Diaz) says:
>This sounds best to me. The biggest problem, IMHO, is that what
>might be considered 'too big' a range in one world is just fine
>in another world that's four times the size. Remember, all games
>have different world sizes. So, why not have a deity-settable
>multiplier, that counts against the current 'standard' ranges?
>
>Then, if a deity is running a game on a small world, he can reduce
>the multiplier. If he's running a huge 512x512 game, he can set them
>at 3x.
Hmmm, so if the Earth was larger our bullets (and other
projectiles) would go farther?? :)
Seriously, though, there MUST be some limit on how far
a cannonball can be propelled no matter the size of the world!
There also MUST be a limit on how small the range is!
Until such a time that a gan has a need/reason to be figing
within its own sector, a distance of at least 1 is helpful...
Basically, the size of the world should not matter to
the distance of the guns, etc... the people remain the same
(theoretical) size, as do the ships, etc... If its decided
that forts shouldn't reach other islands (continents, etc)
then enough water should be put between them to make it so...
gun range should be a (semi) constant... it would be
a good idea to make the ranges more useful; ie: make it so
ships do not out-range forts... but just because a world is
large should guns go farther...
but, I suspect, I am rambling over the same point... :)
forgive me, I have been up appr 48 hrs!
(thank god theres no update for another 15 or so!)
--
kmr...
aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu
Jorge Diaz
>In a previous article, cco...@phantom.oit.gatech.edu (Jorge Diaz) says:
>>Then, if a deity is running a game on a small world, he can reduce
>>the multiplier. If he's running a huge 512x512 game, he can set them
>>at 3x.
> Hmmm, so if the Earth was larger our bullets (and other
>projectiles) would go farther?? :)
No, no, no, you misunderstood. I'm going on the assumption that the
virtual world for all games of empire is pretty much the same. It's
the amount of land that a single sector covers that varies.
In a 512x512 world, you have lots of sectors, they would each represent
a smaller area than each sector in a 64x32 world.
In the former, you can have 8-sector wide oceans between two continents.
In the latter, that just isn't feasible. So, for the latter, you
reduce gun ranges - it just doesn't make sense to be able to shell from
another continent. For the 'bigger' world (more sectors), you increase
the gun ranges so that you can cover some of those vast oceans.
In a world with two sea sectors between islands, a gun range of two is fine.
In a world with eight sea sectors between islands, a gun range of two
is pretty damn useless.
> Seriously, though, there MUST be some limit on how far
>a cannonball can be propelled no matter the size of the world!
See above. I'm assing constant planet size, with the amount of
land represented by a sector changing.
Bulldawg (Ken Pearce)
definatly should keep fort and missle ranges the same. *nobody* has claimed
that empire is realistic....
my number one wish: clean up the code with comments! comments! comments, that
make sense in the code.
KEVIN M. ROBERTS
In a previous article, cco...@phantom.oit.gatech.edu (Jorge Diaz) says:
>> Hmmm, so if the Earth was larger our bullets (and other
>>projectiles) would go farther?? :)
>
>
>No, no, no, you misunderstood. I'm going on the assumption that the
>virtual world for all games of empire is pretty much the same. It's
>the amount of land that a single sector covers that varies.
>
>In a 512x512 world, you have lots of sectors, they would each represent
>a smaller area than each sector in a 64x32 world.
Ok, Ok... I see... and I can agree a bit...
BUT (isn't there ALWAYS a but?) if the world is constant and the
theoretical amount of land a sector covers is what changes, then wouldn't
sectors produce less in large sector-amount games?
Wouldn't less people fit in a sector?
ok... well, those are at least questions which made me assume
the different pov...
Seriously though, if we go with the assumption of Smaller-size land
sectors and thus projectiles going farther (or the reverse of course) then
shouldn't ships be able to travel less distance? Units? planes??
--
kmr...
aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu
Andrew Norris
>
>>In a 512x512 world, you have lots of sectors, they would each represent
>>a smaller area than each sector in a 64x32 world.
>
Forts: I think a max range of 3 is good. For example, that is as far as the
fort can see if it is 100%.
And rather than the range incresing with tech and guns, how about just the
amount of damage able to be inflicted? So a 1 gun 0 tech fort can still
fire 3 sectors, except the chance of hitting is small and the resulting
dammage is piddly.
I guess the same sort of thing could apply to artillery units.
Missles: I think the current ranges could be cut down a bit, especialy
for the higher-tech ones. Long range for ICBM's are good, but all smaller
missle types (sub launch etc) should be less than 20 sectors.
After all, Polaris missle has range of approx 10% of earths circumfeence,
and as a typical game is 128X128, that would give 13 sector range as
reasonable.
Just some thoughtd and inputs..
Andrew
Mark Bothum
Well, I suspect I was one of the first to officially "wish" for some kinda
defense against anti-ship missiles, and suggested utilizing the expensive
and relatively useless aegis cruiser for the task. (The U.S. Navy outfits
them with the unproven-in-battle Phalanx anti-missile system.)
But now we're talking revising the ranges of forts, and ships, and artillery
units, and torpedoes, changing Battleship Grey to some lavendar\mauve pastel
kinda thing.
If there's legitimate gripes about existing gun ranges, that's one thing.
If we just wanna do something about invulnerable missiles...well, let's
just do something about invulnerable missiles.
Give high tech ships some kinda odds of splashing them.
And maybe put the aegis back up to tech 250 where it belongs.
- * Quote For The Day * -
"Kaos Cross-Dresses"
Bulldawg (Ken Pearce)
Fort range should depend on TECH. Damage should depend on #guns. The
ability of the fort to protect the commodiites, mils, and such should
depend on the EFF of the fort.
Gun_Range = log(base-e)[tech_level-MIN_GUN_TECH]
tech range (for mintech =20)
--------------------
20 3
50 3.9
100 4.6
150 5
300 5.7
500 6
Gun's would be pretty inportant in the early going, by the time you get to
tech 500, you've only doubled the range: but usually by that time you're
more interested in nukes...
Limiting gun range to line of sight (3 sectors) ignores the application
of artillery in modern times with Forward Observers, who with a radio, are
able to call in fire from well over the horizon. This I think is a good
justification with leaving range dependent on tech.
The damage should depend on the tech and the number of guns. Higher tech means
better explosives, timing devices, etc. Of course, the amount of damage should
be calculated for one gun, and then the total damage should be a direct product
of the two numbers. Just because the fort you're in is blown away, if you
have a gun and shell, you ought to be able to shoot independent of the condition
of the fort....
Eff of the fort sector should translate in some sort of fort factor
like:
damage_actual = damage_calc * [ 1 - (fort_eff / 200)
therefore a 0% eff fort offers no protection, and a 100% fort will cut
the damage by 2.
S. Keith Graham
#1: Get rid of them. Make planes engage the ships (and assume
that the high accuracy planes have missiles on them.) Many of
these missiles are aircraft based anyway.
#2: Decrease their damage. Make it nearly as expensive to
use missiles on a Battleship as it costs to build one.
#3: Make them very vulnerable to flak, and let a couple of ships or an
Aegis have a chance of shooting them down/aborting them. (Which kills them.)
(And let all of the ships in a sector; or in all sectors along the
flight path; have a shot at them.)
Why go muck with guns, which have been pretty balanced since day 1,
when the problem are these new fangled anti-shipping missiles?
(In fact, anti-shipping missiles have been overly effective
since they were introduced, and have needed fixing for a long time.
I think I played in one of the first games with them, and they
just completely decimated shipping.)
<old timer heads back to the "Home">
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Paul Francis Nurse
In article <2u9rg5$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mur...@ee.ualberta.ca (Don Murray) writes:
|>
|> Here's my wish for discussion.. but I have a feeling
|> people won't like it.
|>
|> IDEA: limit unmodified attack/defense strenghs / sector
|> i.e. make the maximum unmodified attack strength
|> at some threshold like 400, after that, adding more
|> mil wil not increase the attack strength... a modificatino
|> could be that this threshold changes with tech.
I like it, but how about any extra, being used as reserves so that they
still have some use, and you can still take sectors that have alot of mil
in them and a lot of support, but it WILL COST YOU.
So after every death, check to see if they still have some reserves set to
the attack, and effectively kill one of the reserves...
|>
|> RATIONALE:
|> Just pumping more men into a sector should not be the
|> answer to reducing casualties. Against well prepared
|> positions, if you charge in twice as many infantry,
|> you would probably receive almost twice as many
|> casualties, whereas in the current sitaution, you
|> could expect to reduce your casualties from heavy
|> to negligible.
Against a well supported, fortifyed position you could certainly lose
a hell of a lot of men, but ot would still be possible to capture it,
without having to issue 5+ attack waves.
|>
|> Discussion:
|> Ideally, you would limit the overall # of military
|> attacking... before multiplying in the unit attack modifier.
|> This would increase the benefits of arty and air suport
|> on well defended areas... it would also give more reason
|> to develop a mix of defensive and offensive units.
|> Currenlty, defensive units are not very attractive, because
|> the attacker can mount such overwellming odds that even
|> very strong defensive units will be overpowered.
|>
|> I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this.
|> (Don, cowering in his sort-of-flame-retardent underwear)
|> do...@mda.ca
Paul,
--
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out of it alive.
Paul Francis Nurse
How about allowing sams on ships to intercept missiles ? An expensive defense,
but then arn't anti-missiles systems expensive Real World anyway (their
even pretty much untested)
The other option is to create a new missle class as anti missile, instead of
just using sams. But the effect would be the same, the aegis crusier can
already carry 30 odd missiles, so at tech 250 or so, with a whole bunch
of anti-missile missiles it would be a pretty good defense.
Smeg
Jim Ortlieb
>If anti-ship missles are such a problem, do a couple of other things:
>
>#1: Get rid of them. Make planes engage the ships (and assume
>that the high accuracy planes have missiles on them.) Many of
>these missiles are aircraft based anyway.
This seems like a lot more coding than it's worth....
>#2: Decrease their damage. Make it nearly as expensive to
>use missiles on a Battleship as it costs to build one.
Exactly. Double the costs, halve the damage and reduce the range.
Maybe, reduce the accuracy of them.... have a couple take a drink.
>#3: Make them very vulnerable to flak, and let a couple of ships or an
>Aegis have a chance of shooting them down/aborting them. (Which kills them.)
>(And let all of the ships in a sector; or in all sectors along the
>flight path; have a shot at them.)
This isn't bad idea, but again, might be a lot more coding than
necessary. Just fiddle around with the numbers values out there
now before going out and changing the code like that.
Has anyone ever tried reducing the ranges of them and increasing
the costs?
Drake could try this in RiverWorld and see what happens.... it's
the most logical idea -- try it out.
>Why go muck with guns, which have been pretty balanced since day 1,
>when the problem are these new fangled anti-shipping missiles?
Agreed. And I'll go one step further -- if the problem is that
anti-ship missiles are too powerful because their range is too
high, cost too low and damage too high, then just change those
numbers and see what happens from there.
><old timer heads back to the "Home">
Say "Hi" to everybody for me. And, tell them to get their asses
out here and play sometime.... ;-)
Jim
Head Junkie
--
***********************************************************************
--- Jim Ortlieb -- aka... Head Junkie of the CrackHouse
or...@midway.uchicago.edu -- Deity of the JunkieFest newbie games
Today you will win big, pick a fight with a four year old...
S. Keith Graham
>In article <2ucs6g$a...@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vap...@cad.gatech.edu (S. Keith Graham) writes:
>>If anti-ship missles are such a problem, do a couple of other things:
>>
>>#1: Get rid of them. Make planes engage the ships (and assume
>>that the high accuracy planes have missiles on them.) Many of
>>these missiles are aircraft based anyway.
>This seems like a lot more coding than it's worth....
My suggestion here is: Just get rid of the missiles, and
when someone asks for their "Harpoon", tell them that's
what a Range 6 gun on a ship really is. :-)
i.e. no coding, just rip 5 lines out of the planes file. :-)
>>#3: Make them very vulnerable to flak, and let a couple of ships or an
>>Aegis have a chance of shooting them down/aborting them. (Which kills them.)
>>(And let all of the ships in a sector; or in all sectors along the
>>flight path; have a shot at them.)
>This isn't bad idea, but again, might be a lot more coding than
>necessary. Just fiddle around with the numbers values out there
>now before going out and changing the code like that.
This just requires using the existing flak code, and tweaking
defenses of the missiles sufficiently to make them mostly vulnerable
to flak. I don't think it would take much coding at all.
>Drake could try this in RiverWorld and see what happens.... it's
>the most logical idea -- try it out.
Changing a game while running is *BAD*. :-)
>Say "Hi" to everybody for me. And, tell them to get their asses
>out here and play sometime.... ;-)
I tried, but now I'm busy again. :)
Keith Graham
DreamLands
Drake Diedrich
Let's just say I'd rather grade labs than change the Riverworld
code at this point. :) After the (whatever game was I subbing for
kanha in?) endgame, I considered halving the ranges of tactical
missiles, but Certain Players in Riverworld were nearly at tac missile
tech, and I figured they'd be pretty pissed if I cut the ranges back
then. A month earlier I might still have done it, because the
enormous ranges make naval conflicts and trade almost impossible.
It's even worse with SLOW_WAR because you can get target numbers from
an uninvolved ally, without even needing to know the coordinates.
A range 10 or 12 missile is still much better than a gun, and it
doesn't draw any return fire. A range 22 missile can hit almost
anything in the world.
nobody special
: >Drake could try this in RiverWorld and see what happens.... it's
: >the most logical idea -- try it out.
: Changing a game while running is *BAD*. :-)
You could always use the blitz to test it... are the two games running
from the same code, or are there separate directories for each?
Sean Eddy
> My suggestion here is: Just get rid of the missiles, and
> when someone asks for their "Harpoon", tell them that's
> what a Range 6 gun on a ship really is. :-)
That's no good. The great thing about anti-ship missiles is that it
makes the nuclear missile submarines *really* terrific fun. ASW combat
in Riverworld has reached a frightening pitch, because the last thing
you need is some grinning bastard surfacing a missile-laden boomer
right in the middle of $100K worth of trade ships. And when you're
nav'ing your boomer carrying $10K+ of precious missiles around the
ocean, you're running a lovely adrenalin high wondering about enemy
mines, helos, and attack subs... Nah, the missiles are great, just
a bit too powerful.
Walter Smith
: That's no good. The great thing about anti-ship missiles is that it
: makes the nuclear missile submarines *really* terrific fun. ASW combat
: in Riverworld has reached a frightening pitch,
No joke!! =8^O You wanna talk adrenaline rush. Submarine warfare
in Chainsaw code is pretty awesome, with the range of the subs, and
of their torps; the damage a missile sub can do, etc. So many
questions to consider; do I pile 40 missiles on my nuc-miss-sub-2s
and hope they get by? Do I only put 10 on, and send out 4 of the
subs instead? Do I set my subs to retreat if they get pinged?
And on the other end, trying to track enemy subs is a BITCH..;-)
Especially when you know there are some missile-subs floating
around out there with major range on their missiles. I was getting
a major adrenaline rush last night hunting down suspected Mirkwood
my nuc-miss-sub-2s; then when I actually FOUND one, BIG TIME rush.
(of course, the bastard took *4* torps to sink!)
: ocean, you're running a lovely adrenalin high wondering about enemy
: mines, helos, and attack subs... Nah, the missiles are great, just
: a bit too powerful.
Yup. I like the ranges of the missiles and the torps; even at
range 9, an intro-mi1 can't shoot as far as a landing ship can sail
in 1 update, for example. So the balance there doesn't seem too
bad. It's just that there is no defense against them. Fix it
so that FLAK can have a chance at damaging them, and you might
have it fixed. Or add another "flag" to ships and units; "amd"
(anti-missile-defense). High tech ships (Aegis cruisers, some
other ships, too) and land units (AA units, maybe some others)
would have it, and their FLAK would then be able to have a chance
at damaging/killing the incoming missile. People could use the
asm-flagged ships to protect important fleets, although (since their
range would not extend beyind their sector) not "areas". And
they could use asm-flagged units in key harbors.
Personally, I'd like to see tactical missiles be able to pin-bomb
things like the eff of the sector, and maybe even units, like the
cruise missiles can in HP-empire. But that might be a whole 'nother
can of worms...;)
MadDog of UUCP
shawn mahaney
Navies have been sitting ducks since ksu. I'd support any effort to
make naval power the power it really is - when the world is at modern
tech levels.
This brings up my only other beef - the game peters out at just beyond
real-world tech. It would take some careful consideration to keep
play balanced, but it'd be neat to have more advanced toys (and anti-toys).
Bill Hickey
Is there a PC game that is similar to Empire where the computer controls
the other players, so I can play this at home until I get a network
access.
Thanks in advance.
Bill,
Jason S Duelge
Navies were sitting ducks with KSU. They used mobility to fire, hardly
had any range, and a 0% KSU fort would fire just fine, thank you, and cost
nothing to designate.
In the current code, there is a sizeable window (tech-wise) in which ships
are very powerful. Then, as tech gets higher, the ships become out-dated.
I think that this is perfect. If you want to slow tech down, you can have
eras with almost no naval conflict, then an area with heavy naval conflict,
and end up in an era where missiles and aircraft reign supreme. Sort of like
the real world. :)
Jason - Temekula
--
| Jason Duelge |'every man has his price bob, your's was pretty low'|
| 2754 No 57th st |'who needs information when you're living in |
| Milwaukee, WI 53210 |'constant fear?' 'you've got to strike when the |
| due...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | moment is right without thinking' ... R Waters |
Karl Chance
>IDEA: limit unmodified attack/defense strenghs / sector
> i.e. make the maximum unmodified attack strength
> at some threshold like 400, after that, adding more
> mil wil not increase the attack strength... a modificatino
> could be that this threshold changes with tech.
>
I like the idea of limiting attack maximum AND defensive maximums.
But, these *should* be able to be increased through appropriate use
of support. ex: 400 mil = 400 mil, 600 mil = 400 mil, 400 mil +
50% support = 600 mil.
>RATIONALE:
> Just pumping more men into a sector should not be the
> answer to reducing casualties. Against well prepared
> positions, if you charge in twice as many infantry,
> you would probably receive almost twice as many
> casualties, whereas in the current sitaution, you
> could expect to reduce your casualties from heavy
> to negligible.
I would not go this far in rationalizing. I think that the extra mil
would simply keep your odds at the maximum. Thus, as you killed off
the oposing forces, your odds would eventually increase through the battle.
>Discussion:
> Ideally, you would limit the overall # of military
> attacking... before multiplying in the unit attack modifier.
> This would increase the benefits of arty and air suport
> on well defended areas... it would also give more reason
> to develop a mix of defensive and offensive units.
> Currenlty, defensive units are not very attractive, because
> the attacker can mount such overwellming odds that even
> very strong defensive units will be overpowered.
>
I like defensive units!
:-)
>I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this.
>(Don, cowering in his sort-of-flame-retardent underwear)
>do...@mda.ca
The ratio between the attacking maximum, and the defensive maxmimum
would be difficult to properly adjust. And the ability of technology
or research to modify the maxs would also need to be under strict
scrutiny. But, this idea does appeal to me.
Karl Chance.
Henrik Bjorkman
I think it would be verry nice with a summary map. A low resolution
like 32*32 over the world and available after when all players
knows most things anyway. It would be even more fun (if possible)
for non players to read the "Murk-o-Vision" reports that way.
/Henrik (player wanabe)
Kevin Klemmick
>In article <2u9rg5$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> mur...@ee.ualberta.ca (Don Murray) writes:
>>IDEA: limit unmodified attack/defense strenghs / sector
>> i.e. make the maximum unmodified attack strength
>> at some threshold like 400, after that, adding more
>> mil wil not increase the attack strength... a modificatino
>> could be that this threshold changes with tech.
>>
>
>I like the idea of limiting attack maximum AND defensive maximums.
>But, these *should* be able to be increased through appropriate use
>of support. ex: 400 mil = 400 mil, 600 mil = 400 mil, 400 mil +
>50% support = 600 mil.
>
>>I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this.
>>(Don, cowering in his sort-of-flame-retardent underwear)
>>do...@mda.ca
>
>The ratio between the attacking maximum, and the defensive maxmimum
>would be difficult to properly adjust. And the ability of technology
>or research to modify the maxs would also need to be under strict
>scrutiny. But, this idea does appeal to me.
>
>Karl Chance.
>
I too really like this idea. It certainly is to easy to focus an attacking
force to take out even a well defended island with little losses. In some
cases I find myself purposely leaving battlezones lightly defended knowing
I can cause more losses during a counter-attack than I could trying to defend.
As Karl mentioned, the hardest part is trying to get the maximum values
pinned down. I think using the defensive/offensive values of sectors would
be the easiest way of doing this. ie: max defence for road: 100, max defence
for fort = 800, bank = 400, etc.. Use factors in excess of this amount as
reserves, essentially killing them off first.
Granted, this would make taking a fort from a road an exspensive venture,
even with a huge force and good support (even 200% of 100 is 1/4 of the
800 defensive max of a fort). But I like it alot. Enough so that I might even
code it up and see how it works.
Kevin
aka Waffen
Jim Ortlieb
>In article <2uijjr$8...@clt.fx.net> bo...@clt.fx.net (Karl Chance) writes:
>>In article <2u9rg5$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> mur...@ee.ualberta.ca (Don Murray) writes:
>>>IDEA: limit unmodified attack/defense strenghs / sector
>>> i.e. make the maximum unmodified attack strength
>>> at some threshold like 400, after that, adding more
>>> mil wil not increase the attack strength... a modificatino
>>> could be that this threshold changes with tech.
>>>
>>
>>I like the idea of limiting attack maximum AND defensive maximums.
>>But, these *should* be able to be increased through appropriate use
>>of support. ex: 400 mil = 400 mil, 600 mil = 400 mil, 400 mil +
>>50% support = 600 mil.
>>
>
>pinned down. I think using the defensive/offensive values of sectors would
>be the easiest way of doing this. ie: max defence for road: 100, max defence
>for fort = 800, bank = 400, etc.. Use factors in excess of this amount as
>reserves, essentially killing them off first.
I've been pondering this one and may have an alternative solution that
could lead to a whole new slew of possibilities.
Have attack and defensive values logged like tech and research.
Thus, we'd have an attack log of 2 and a defensive log ratio of 1.6. So,
the defender would have an easier time protecting himself. The attacker
could pour in more troops, but these would not be as productive as the
defender pouring in the same amount extra.
We'd have to play with the numbers a little and probably keep it as a
game option (deity-setable as usual), but I think we could work something
out in this arena.
Maybe the logs would be more like 1.4 for offense and 1.2 for defense. I
dunno yet, but we should be able to try this idea out in some blitzes and
see what happens.
The code changes wouldn't be too bad, because it'd be a number we apply
before the actual fighting itself takes place. We put it in the 'attack',
'assault' and 'para' code and nothing else needs to be touched. (We may
even get away with putting it all in one place, but I'd have to do more
research on that one before I say that...)
>Granted, this would make taking a fort from a road an exspensive venture,
>even with a huge force and good support (even 200% of 100 is 1/4 of the
>800 defensive max of a fort). But I like it alot. Enough so that I might even
>code it up and see how it works.
Ahh... but with my idea, taking the fort would be expensive in terms of
military needed, but not so impossible.
Since this number can be altered by the deity, then you can change it
according to your needs. Maybe in a blitz game, they'd both be very low
and in a flatworld game the offensive attack log would be high.... It
all depends on what the deity chooses.
Thoughts?
Jason S Duelge
for land combat, much like with planes. Something random, perhaps depending
on the tech of the nations involved, which will have a number of casualties
that will be inflicted before the fight ends. This means there can be
stalemates in attacks ... you don't get the sector! This will result in
perhaps multiple attacks on a certain sector ... which might create problems
for defending land units (that would use more mobility) ... but you might
want to add a provision that a sector can't be attacked more than once per
etu ... something like that.
Just another suggestion!
Jason - Temekula
--
| Jason Duelge |'hey Joe where you going with that dogma in your |
| 2754 No 57th st | head ... you can prove your point but your kids |
| Milwaukee, WI 53210 | will still be dead' 'you've got to strike when the|
Tero Paananen
>Now, instead, I throw an infantry 1 against him (50 mil attack strength).
>I stand a fairly good chance of losing, because my infantry might retreat.
I've always thought that the retreat percentage of the units is way too
high. I mean having it at 75% at the beginning is fairly close to being
ridiculous.
IMHO the commander of land units should be able to tell them to "fight
for the last man, if necessary" (i.e. retreat percentage of 0%).
-TPP
Thomas Ruschak
>I've always thought that the retreat percentage of the units is way too
>high. I mean having it at 75% at the beginning is fairly close to being
>ridiculous.
Actually, if you know any military history at all, you know that
taking 25% casualties in one engagement is no laughing matter for a military
unit. Units that quickly take 30-35% (without a chance to process/absorb some
replacements) are often rendered combat ineffective for weeks.
The problem is that the first 30% or so of a ground unit contains much
of the combat troops (riflemen, tank crews, etc), and ALL the ones that are
really good & aggressive. This will also include most/all of the effective
officers in the unit. Once this 30% is killed off, you have a lot of support
troops & second-raters left, and the unit's performance & cohesion drop off
sharply.
When you reach 50% or so, you mostly have support troops left, and the
unit isn't worth much. (The further back you go in history, of course, the
larger the percentage of combat to support troops, but for the periods covered
by Empire, this is close enough)
>IMHO the commander of land units should be able to tell them to "fight
>for the last man, if necessary" (i.e. retreat percentage of 0%).
Military units just don't do this, except when they're trapped. If
you know any military history, you know this just doesn't occur. Even in
cases where the defenders are strategically trapped (Say the Israelis in the
Yom-Kippur war of '73), and are defending their homes, wives, and children,
with nowhere to go, this STILL doesn't happen. They'll fight a lot harder,
true, but if there is a physical escape route, almost any group of soldiers
will be able to rationalize something about 'fighting another day', and take
a hike rather than being destroyed 'to the last man'.
Can you give any examples of 'last stands' made by units that were
not physically trapped? I've done a fair amount of reading, but I can't recall
any, off-hand.
Tom
Don Murray
>In article <2urrq2$4...@proffa.cc.tut.fi> p11...@cc.tut.fi (Tero Paananen) writes:
>>I've always thought that the retreat percentage of the units is way too
>>high. I mean having it at 75% at the beginning is fairly close to being
>>ridiculous.
> Actually, if you know any military history at all, you know that
>taking 25% casualties in one engagement is no laughing matter for a military
>unit. Units that quickly take 30-35% (without a chance to process/absorb some
>replacements) are often rendered combat ineffective for weeks.
Another idea then, is have 'mil' retreat/break off their attacks when they
lose 25% of their initial attack.
Drake Diedrich
>Another idea then, is have 'mil' retreat/break off their attacks when they
>lose 25% of their initial attack.
One of the ideas floating around the server discussions is to do
away with offensive mil altogether. Sector mobility would no longer
be used for attacks, and mil would be defensive-only. This would
allow attack and explore to carry mobility into new sectors without
giving the invader any significant *military* advantage, but allowing
explores from a newly captured sectors.
This probably won't happen in the current rewrite, but I may use it
in the new server I'm working on.
nobody special
I might allow one exception to this: mil may attack a captured sector in
an effort to reclaim it. Defense of the homeland, and all that.
Otherwise, what's the point in reserves?
Paul Francis Nurse
What I would prefer is that units and mil take damage during combat
depending on their mil size, so that all units take damage as opposed
to killing of the mil, then the largest unit, then the next largest etc...
Personally I'd like to see the complete removal of mil, call them recuits,
lower their combat rating even more, so that their only used to create
units ...
I would also like to be able to demob complete units, as opposed to mil,
I guess this would create the mil (or civs) in the sector, and 'store'
the 'heavy' equipment etc. in that sector (kind of like the national guard)
the unit would lose eff each update (not much, but a little) and would
have to be reformed in the sector you demob-ed it in.
The losing eff, might mean that you want to mobilize the units every
now and then to bring them back up to speed, (consider this yearly training).
The only real problem I see with this apart from the coding, is that it
would only be usefull in SLOW tech games, as normally a unit gets out
of date as fast as your airforce ... like hay shit its 100% I can use it
now ... opps might as well scrap it I can now build jf3's ... etc. I'm
sure thats a story you've all experienced before. And that demob-ing units
in that kind of situation would be a little silly.
Anyway due to the fact that I'm not going to be on the net for the next
couple of months, send the flames to /dev/null and save the bandwidth,
but personally I like the idea :)
Paul,
Brett Reid
Paul Francis Nurse <pf...@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Personally I'd like to see the complete removal of mil, call them recuits,
>lower their combat rating even more, so that their only used to create
>units ...
I personally like this idea - it removes the ambiguity between mil
and units and how each acts differently. In this way, one is using
strictly units to defend their homeland and units to attack others.
The only change I'd foresee that would need to be made that would need
tweaking would be to strengthen the ability of units to defend (perhaps).
For ships, create a smaller unit of marine "navy" to sail em about.
For planes, create an airborne unit to paradrop.
I think you could have some wiz-bang wars using only units. And that
is the point of this game.... As I recall.
Brett
p.s. Temekula sux :) <--- Gratuitous slander
Jim Ortlieb
>
>In article <2us6g1$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>, mur...@ee.ualberta.ca (Don Murray) writes:
>|> t...@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <2urrq2$4...@proffa.cc.tut.fi> p11...@cc.tut.fi (Tero Paananen) writes:
>|> >>I've always thought that the retreat percentage of the units is way too
>|> >>high. I mean having it at 75% at the beginning is fairly close to being
>|> >>ridiculous.
>|>
>|> > Actually, if you know any military history at all, you know that
>|> >taking 25% casualties in one engagement is no laughing matter for a military
>|> >unit. Units that quickly take 30-35% (without a chance to process/absorb some
>|> >replacements) are often rendered combat ineffective for weeks.
>|>
>|> Another idea then, is have 'mil' retreat/break off their attacks when they
>|> lose 25% of their initial attack.
>
>What I would prefer is that units and mil take damage during combat
>depending on their mil size, so that all units take damage as opposed
>to killing of the mil, then the largest unit, then the next largest etc...
>
>Personally I'd like to see the complete removal of mil, call them recuits,
>lower their combat rating even more, so that their only used to create
>units ...
I've heard this many times before and I'll ask the same, yet unanswered,
questions once again -- How would you occupy someone else's territory or
put up differing amounts of defense without having mil around?
Having mil around lets me spread them out and put them wherever I like. I
can stick 2 here, 56 there, 143 here, another 12 there, move 13 from here
to here, etc. Having them as conventional mil allows me to putup whatever
kinds of defenses I like. Limiting the defender as to the types of troops
he has to keep will seriously affect the way in which people setup defenses
in Empire. This will button-hole them into a few different strategies and
make it easier for the attacker to apply whatever counter-measures are
necessary.
And occupation would be incredibly difficult without mil. I'm not gonna
build 200 security units to occupy someone's 100 sector country. That's
absolutely outrageous.
I think the scope of that change is a lot greater than it looks. As ugly
as they are, mil are one of the backbones of Empire. Taking out mil is
do-able, but it must be realized that it's a MAJOR change. Probably even
more major than taking ships completely out (since you could play entirely
flatworld games or ones where everything is bridgeable).
I realize that land units are cool, but you still need mil around to do a
lot of the dirty work. Land units aren't easily broken into small pieces
and thus create logistical problems in doing some things that mil do
really well. (occupation and defenses are one)
Try disting mil in a blitz sometime for defense. It works. It keeps
everything pretty much well under control and forces the guy to really
hammer the hell out of you to take all that stuff over. Sure, it kills
the mobility in the warehouse, but it illustrates the usefulness that mil
can have.
They're the PB&J of Empire -- you can spread them around and without them
you don't have much of a sandwich. :-)
Kevin Klemmick
>In article <2urrq2$4...@proffa.cc.tut.fi> p11...@cc.tut.fi (Tero Paananen) writes:
>>I've always thought that the retreat percentage of the units is way too
>>high. I mean having it at 75% at the beginning is fairly close to being
>>ridiculous.
>
> Actually, if you know any military history at all, you know that
>taking 25% casualties in one engagement is no laughing matter for a military
>unit. Units that quickly take 30-35% (without a chance to process/absorb some
>replacements) are often rendered combat ineffective for weeks.
>
retreat percentage it's basically worthless (well, not really; but let's
generalize). Maybe a comprimise here would be taking up to it's retreat
percentage of it's current strength _per engagement_. That is, a 50% unit
attacking with a 70% morale would retreat at 35%. Maybe not realistic, but
would make this problem a little less severe.
>>IMHO the commander of land units should be able to tell them to "fight
>>for the last man, if necessary" (i.e. retreat percentage of 0%).
>
> Military units just don't do this, except when they're trapped. If
>
I agree here. Besides being unrealistic, it takes away some playability.
>Tom
Kevin
aka Waffen
KEVIN M. ROBERTS
In a previous article, t...@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) says:
> Can you give any examples of 'last stands' made by units that were
>not physically trapped? I've done a fair amount of reading, but I can't recall
>any, off-hand.
>
>Tom
>
First off, let me say that I agree with what you said just about 100%
But, I can give an example regarding this last bit... Have you watched
Gettysburg (the tnt production) or read the Killer Angels (book it is based
on)?
The main union unit (forget leaders name, sorry...) was willing to
charge the enemy with fixed boyonettes!!! I would bet many thought they were
simply going to their deaths in order to save the integrity of the union line!
These men were not trapped, they simply believed in what they were doing and
understood the consequences of retreat.
But, like I said, I agree with your previous statements and this
case just might be the exception which proves the rule! :)
--
kmr...
aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu
Jorge Diaz
>In article <2ushv9$c...@finch.doc.ic.ac.uk>,
>Paul Francis Nurse <pf...@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Personally I'd like to see the complete removal of mil, call them recuits,
>>lower their combat rating even more, so that their only used to create
>>units ...
>I personally like this idea - it removes the ambiguity between mil
>and units and how each acts differently. In this way, one is using
>strictly units to defend their homeland and units to attack others.
Well, I wouldn't get rid of mil altogether. As one person pointed out,
it's nice to be able to put 10 mil in every sector (or however many
you want). The point is, you can split up the mil more easily than you
can the units. Unless you intend to put a unit in every sector.
But if 'mil' are just supposed to be for defense or for holding territories
that your big bad units have taken over, why not have them defend at half
strength or something similar? This way, they're still there. They still
serve their main function (allowing you to hold captured sectors), but you'd
really have to attack with land units, unless the other guy just didn't
have anything to defend himself with.
So you're not completely eliminating the idea of attacking with 'mil', but
you're making it a hell of a lot less appealing.
--
Jorge Diaz | "We all dream a lot; some are lucky, some
Georgia Institute of Technology | are not. But if you think it, want it,
Office of Information Technology | dream it, then it's real....
cco...@phantom.gatech.edu | You are what you feel."
Paul Francis Nurse
In article <1994Jun29.2...@midway.uchicago.edu>, or...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jim Ortlieb) writes:
|> In article <2ushv9$c...@finch.doc.ic.ac.uk> pf...@doc.ic.ac.uk (Paul Francis Nurse) writes:
|> >
|> >What I would prefer is that units and mil take damage during combat
|> >depending on their mil size, so that all units take damage as opposed
|> >to killing of the mil, then the largest unit, then the next largest etc...
|> >
|> >Personally I'd like to see the complete removal of mil, call them recuits,
|> >lower their combat rating even more, so that their only used to create
|> >units ...
|>
|> I've heard this many times before and I'll ask the same, yet unanswered,
|> questions once again -- How would you occupy someone else's territory or
|> put up differing amounts of defense without having mil around?
|>
|> Having mil around lets me spread them out and put them wherever I like. I
|> can stick 2 here, 56 there, 143 here, another 12 there, move 13 from here
|> to here, etc. Having them as conventional mil allows me to putup whatever
|> kinds of defenses I like. Limiting the defender as to the types of troops
|> he has to keep will seriously affect the way in which people setup defenses
|> in Empire. This will button-hole them into a few different strategies and
|> make it easier for the attacker to apply whatever counter-measures are
|> necessary.
Does it really make much difference having say 12 or 13 mil in a sector?
I wouldn't have though so, in fact I can't see the problem here, just still
a couple of units on reseve missions, and have units overlap on the important
areas (ie bank, cap etc.) But if you really worrird about it, allow different
sizes of units, a tiny inf1, a small inf1, a normal inf1, and a large inf1,
contain 25,50,100,200 mil etc. Really shouldn't be that hard to handle a
defense with that lot. You can put the units where you need them etc.
|>
|> And occupation would be incredibly difficult without mil. I'm not gonna
|> build 200 security units to occupy someone's 100 sector country. That's
|> absolutely outrageous.
How about allow security units to have an area effect ? And allow units to
react to fight che, of course you'd have to allow players to own ocupied
sectors without mil in them as we won't have any mil, so effectively the
owner of the sector is determined by the last player to move a unit into
the sector, or by the update and che.
|>
|> I think the scope of that change is a lot greater than it looks. As ugly
|> as they are, mil are one of the backbones of Empire. Taking out mil is
|> do-able, but it must be realized that it's a MAJOR change. Probably even
|> more major than taking ships completely out (since you could play entirely
|> flatworld games or ones where everything is bridgeable).
|>
|> I realize that land units are cool, but you still need mil around to do a
|> lot of the dirty work. Land units aren't easily broken into small pieces
|> and thus create logistical problems in doing some things that mil do
|> really well. (occupation and defenses are one)
I disagree, land units can easily be broken up into small pieces, and having
a lot of units around, on defensive missions wouldn't be hard to handle at
all, you just wouldn't need to touch them, build them put them in place,
and leave them all alone ... wheres the nightmare ?
|>
|> Try disting mil in a blitz sometime for defense. It works. It keeps
|> everything pretty much well under control and forces the guy to really
|> hammer the hell out of you to take all that stuff over. Sure, it kills
|> the mobility in the warehouse, but it illustrates the usefulness that mil
|> can have.
how often does a guy attack a sector and not get it, then try again, and
again ... because this is what your refering to isn't it, after all you
can't dist to a sector you don't OWN anymore. And the attack before the update
has to fail, and your expecting one after the update ... I don't think this
is a good example, the only times I've found disting mil to be really useful
is to dist them to !*hf mainly because the first 3 use the mil, and the last
might lose a few due to being shelled a bit.
|>
|> They're the PB&J of Empire -- you can spread them around and without them
|> you don't have much of a sandwich. :-)
Of course the units will need a few modifications but not many I think,
remember units can heal up at any sector, so as long as you keep the
materials around to let them do this, they should still be able to handle
an over the update attack quite well, at least as well as disting mil ...
But considering this would be easy to test, and see how well the idea works
in general, why don't you run a quick couple of games, where mil arn't
included in the attacks, and see what would need changeing, and how well
it works ... You might find it strange that I'm asking you to run the
games, but I havn't got a machine I can run them on, and I'm sure you
have ... :)
Paul
Steven White
KEVIN M. ROBERTS <aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> But, I can give an example regarding this last bit... Have you watched
>Gettysburg (the tnt production) or read the Killer Angels (book it is based
>on)?
>
> The main union unit (forget leaders name, sorry...) was willing to
>charge the enemy with fixed boyonettes!!! I would bet many thought they were
>simply going to their deaths in order to save the integrity of the union line!
>These men were not trapped, they simply believed in what they were doing and
>understood the consequences of retreat.
On the other, hand, should they actually hit the enemy line, one's enemy
tends to become rather demoralized and runs off. Which was considered more
'humane' then sitting in a line and shooting each other and watching each
other slow drop with no resolution in the action.
And supposedly in many wars in Europe (I'm recalling a book I have at home
that I read a fairly long while ago, so I'm fuzzy) quite a many battles
were nicely resolved with a charge, (with a round of firing before hand)
There isn't much less depressing then seeing your opponents run through a
volley (Sure taking some losses) and winding up in front of you, bayonnettes
thrusting. And considering the distances guns fired, you don't take as many
losses as you might expect.
I will admit that the US, did seemingly wind up badly stalemated in
Gettysburg and other battles. But I'm can't claim the knowledge to talk
about them.
Steven White / Furrym
Closest I came to US military history was when my boy scout troupe
participated in the reenactment of the taking of Fort York, (War
of 1812). What was funny, was that our King's 8th Loyal Regiment
had to join up the American side. Far too few of them had showed up.
Jim Ortlieb
>
>In article <1994Jun29.2...@midway.uchicago.edu>, or...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Jim Ortlieb) writes:
>|> Having mil around lets me spread them out and put them wherever I like. I
>|> can stick 2 here, 56 there, 143 here, another 12 there, move 13 from here
>|> to here, etc. Having them as conventional mil allows me to putup whatever
>|> kinds of defenses I like. Limiting the defender as to the types of troops
>|> he has to keep will seriously affect the way in which people setup defenses
>|> in Empire. This will button-hole them into a few different strategies and
>|> make it easier for the attacker to apply whatever counter-measures are
>|> necessary.
>
>Does it really make much difference having say 12 or 13 mil in a sector?
>I wouldn't have though so, in fact I can't see the problem here, just still
>a couple of units on reseve missions, and have units overlap on the important
>areas (ie bank, cap etc.) But if you really worrird about it, allow different
>sizes of units, a tiny inf1, a small inf1, a normal inf1, and a large inf1,
>contain 25,50,100,200 mil etc. Really shouldn't be that hard to handle a
>defense with that lot. You can put the units where you need them etc.
Well, units run out of mobility very quickly. Remember -- mil use the mob
of the sector they sit in. So, I can attack with the same set of 100 mil
all over my country.
To build a unit, I have to make the materials, put them in a '!' and wait
for the update (after typing "build" and deciding what I want, etc.). With
mil, I can use "enlist" and "demob" to teleport mil anywhere I want. I
realize that this seems a little unrealistic, but it does allow you to do a
lot of different things with the mil you own. It's like every sector is a
60% warehouse with market enabled and you don't need someone to sell them
back to you.
With units, I have to have them sitting right next to the sector where I
think I'm gonna be attacked. *AND* I have to pay for them while they sit
there doing absolutely nothing. About the only unit which can pay for
itself is the engineer (and they're so expensive that I don't even think
that's practical in many situations).
If you're attacked correctly, you won't be able to put the units exactly
where you'll need them. And, you can't afford to keep them around.
One possible way of getting around this -- when you put a unit on a reserve
mission, then you should pay for the unit as if it's on reserve. So, you
should only pay for maybe 1/3 of the mil, for example. This might help, but
I don't think it's gonna allow you to drop mil entirely.
>|>
>|> And occupation would be incredibly difficult without mil. I'm not gonna
>|> build 200 security units to occupy someone's 100 sector country. That's
>|> absolutely outrageous.
>
>How about allow security units to have an area effect ? And allow units to
>react to fight che, of course you'd have to allow players to own ocupied
>sectors without mil in them as we won't have any mil, so effectively the
>owner of the sector is determined by the last player to move a unit into
>the sector, or by the update and che.
Well, then what are che? Are they a tiny inf 1 that is built on the spot
automatically and tries to take over your stuff? It's semi-interesting, but
would get rather dumb after a while.
Currently, che are mil. They are recruited in the sector and fight. If you
lost 50 sectors and 45 of them revolted, then you'd go broke for sure trying
to support the 45 new land units there. (Maybe we could lower the maint
costs...)
>|> I think the scope of that change is a lot greater than it looks. As ugly
>|> as they are, mil are one of the backbones of Empire. Taking out mil is
>|> do-able, but it must be realized that it's a MAJOR change. Probably even
>|> more major than taking ships completely out (since you could play entirely
>|> flatworld games or ones where everything is bridgeable).
>|>
>|> I realize that land units are cool, but you still need mil around to do a
>|> lot of the dirty work. Land units aren't easily broken into small pieces
>|> and thus create logistical problems in doing some things that mil do
>|> really well. (occupation and defenses are one)
>
>I disagree, land units can easily be broken up into small pieces, and having
>a lot of units around, on defensive missions wouldn't be hard to handle at
>all, you just wouldn't need to touch them, build them put them in place,
>and leave them all alone ... wheres the nightmare ?
Land units cannot be broken into smaller pieces. You might be able to create
smaller units, but they tmeselves could not be broken up and added together
very easily. (Would we really want to add something like this?)
>|> Try disting mil in a blitz sometime for defense. It works. It keeps
>|> everything pretty much well under control and forces the guy to really
>|> hammer the hell out of you to take all that stuff over. Sure, it kills
>|> the mobility in the warehouse, but it illustrates the usefulness that mil
>|> can have.
>
>how often does a guy attack a sector and not get it, then try again, and
>again ...
This happens quite often actually... and if the "supply" code really will work
one day like maybe it should, then the warehouse would attempt to re-supply
the sector under attack. (This again, is something which is an option if we
keep mil, but gone if we lose them.)
>because this is what your refering to isn't it, after all you
>can't dist to a sector you don't OWN anymore.
Not necessarily.... you could setup territories and realms and dist and thresh
mil that way to save hoardes of time. I certainly wouldn't try and setup
defenses with units in a blitz -- even someone who can type 200 wpm like
Yelich would still have problems. (Hi Scott. :-)
>And the attack before the update
>has to fail, and your expecting one after the update ... I don't think this
>is a good example, the only times I've found disting mil to be really useful
>is to dist them to !*hf mainly because the first 3 use the mil, and the last
>might lose a few due to being shelled a bit.
Disting things as opposed to moving everything around can be a nice help to
you. You can setup an e on an island and leave it alone with the dists and
it'll have like 50 mil in every sector within a few updates. You don't have
to touch it. You don't have exact control of everything, but it's an option
for those blitzers.... I don't like taking options away from someone unless
it's being abused or has harmful side-effects if kept in (trade, market, loan,
offer, etc.).
>|> They're the PB&J of Empire -- you can spread them around and without them
>|> you don't have much of a sandwich. :-)
>
>Of course the units will need a few modifications but not many I think,
>remember units can heal up at any sector, so as long as you keep the
>materials around to let them do this, they should still be able to handle
>an over the update attack quite well, at least as well as disting mil ...
I know that units can attempt to supply themselves. But, mil don't have to.
You can take over someone's island and keep mil supplied with one fishing
boat or a few drop-able planes within range. I don't need to ship shells,
guns, cm's, etc. over there to keep it protected. And, once the island is
under my control, I demob maybe half the mil and keep them on reserve for
another occasion.
>But considering this would be easy to test, and see how well the idea works
>in general, why don't you run a quick couple of games, where mil arn't
>included in the attacks, and see what would need changeing, and how well
>it works ... You might find it strange that I'm asking you to run the
>games, but I havn't got a machine I can run them on, and I'm sure you
>have ... :)
Ok. You got me there. :-)
I guess I could hack pretty quickly and remove mil, but I really don't think
it's worth it. I still can't see what we gain. Is having mil around really
that painful?
To me, a change like that would have to make a marketable improvement to
gameplay before I'd try screwing around with it. There are so many changes,
patches and bug-fixes as it is... why alter something which works?