From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire
Subject: Re: Update Stuff & Land Units
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:05:08 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep3.233710.3500@col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>The points I posed were based on my #1, that land units would
>actually replace the current concept of MIL in empire.  Otherwise,
>they will be really just an extension of tanks, which Bill Frolik
>has already implemented.  (they were in the BBN code, I think?)

Nope, no units in BBN code.

>ANyways, on with the discussion:

OK. :-)

>>>1) I think if implemented, they should *replace* mil,
>>>   not just suppliment them.  
>> I disagree.  First, units will cost money to build, that some people
>> might not want to spend (OK, mils cost money too, but still).
>"Ideally", I thought completely replacing them was better.  Adding units
>without removing the mil just adds *another* level of complexity to the
>game.  I still think the "ideal" would be to go that way.  But, ther
>are problems.  First of all, people would want to make oodles of"small"
>units scattered all over hell.  Or Batak, or wherever you decide to
>lay them..:-)  The UNIT database would get *HUGE*.  That alone makes
>replacing mil completely with units seem impractical.

True.  Besides, Tom has no problem with sacrificing simplicity for
reality in the game. :-)

>> >2) If you take a sector with a UNIT, how is the OWNER/OLDOWN
>> >   calculated?

>:-)  No no, not the owner of the unit, the owner of the sector.  IF
>mil were totally replaced, you'd have to come up with a new scheme
>for "taking" sectors.

Precisely why I don't think they should be replace. :-)

>Probobly units would be able to move thru
>sectors, then, like tanks can "shell" a sector, an infantry unit
>could "take" a sector.  It would take a certain amount of mobility
>from the unit.   Or, it could just pass thru on the way to its
>"real" target...

Right.  But you still need the mils to take/hold the sector.

>> Again, I don't see why units would determine ownership.  If I move a tank
>> into Athens, GA, do I get ownership?  No.  I can do some serious damage,
>> making it easier for ground troops (or paratroops) to take the city, but
>> the tanks themselves don't give me control.

>This should be cleared up by this point; I meant if MIL were out,
>and UNITS were a total replacement for them.  IF mil are totally
>taken out, UNITS will have to determine ownership of a sector.

Right.  But I don't think mil should be taken out. :-)
I'm assuming the point of this discussion is to present our views, and
why we feel they should or should not be removed.  I'm explaining why
I don't think they should.


Other reasons not to remove mil:

First, it makes landing ships and paradrop planes pretty useless. :-)
Second, we now have to change the structure of ships.  Most warships can't
     load civs.  If you remove mil, there's no one to drive them.
Third, all units (like ships) have a certain mobility.  If your units run
     out of mob, you can't move them - basically, you're defenseless.  Mil
     can still be moved around using the mobility of the sectors, so they
     still make a better defense.  Units should just be front-line weapons.

-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."