From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Update Stuff & Land Units
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:37:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center


Jorge,

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?)

ANyways, on with the discussion:

ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.183340.26757@col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >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.

The "costing money" isn't a problem; the update could see how many
"mil" the unit represented, and charge accordingly.

> Second, units are going to require a certain level of tech.  Until you
> get that tech, you can't build them.

Again, not a problem.  "primitive" units would start at tech 0,
with various unit types coming along at higher tech..pretty basic.

> >2) If you take a sector with a UNIT, how is the OWNER/OLDOWN
> >   calculated?
> 
> I would assume that he still owns the units.  Unlike planes, units
> are not 'sitting ducks' when they're on the ground.  They can fight
> just as well in enemy territory (otherwise they'd be pretty damn
> useless :-).

:-)  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.  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...

> >   What if
> >   you BOTH have units in the sector?  What happens when
> >   you move out of the sector, do you lose the OWNER flag?
> >   How about if you are killed out of 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.

> >3) Would paratroops have their own planes, or need to
> >   be loaded onto transports?  If they have their own
> >   planes, how do you handle moving them by ship?
> 
> Paratroops would remain implemented the way they currently are.
> Why change it?

Again, ONLY if mil are removed in favor of units...

Newsgroups: rec.games.empire