From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Subject: Re: Land Units should be modifiable.
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:23:53 GMT

In article <53lnv#_.elvis@netcom.com> elvis@netcom.com (kEvin A. Thornbury) writes:
>kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:
>
>>I agree, if we go to land based units (al la ships) then individual mils
>>should be done away with entirely.
>
>I think individual mil do simulate infantry pretty well - they're slow,
>they can do some work, they can be converted to civs and vice versa.
>
>Using the land units as vehicles and cavalry seems like it would work.
>If land units were to simulate vehicles, then it would be pretty easy to
>include an APC of some type to move mil around. landunits could attack
>mil in sectors they went through, but it would still require infantry (normal
>mil) to convert and occupy them. This would provide some help for defenders,
>who benefit somewhat from having the reaction radius, but still face the
>prospect of logging into a country swarming with enemy armor.

	It seems simpler to just simulate infantry units directly. Let 'mil'
be militia, sub-standard troops, etc. Let 'units' be the elite, the nation's
actual striking force. (Immortals/10th Legion/Select Fyrd/Old Guard/SS Armored
division, etc)

>If armor could drive through occupied sectors (at some big penalty to movement
>cost - say (4 - 3*odds)*normal) but could not convert it without mil,
>which would have to fight defenders, then defense would be a bit easier.
>Every time armor moved in occupied territory it would be subject to attack
>by the defending troops and landunits, which would have an armor defense based
>on the defenders tech. (tech zero infantry shouldn't be able to scratch the
>paint on M-1's, but the 301st janitorial and supply battalion's laser guided
>super howitzer rounds should kill them in droves) I like the supply rules.
>Having enemy landunits in your sectors could reduce the work percentage and
>sector mobility (by, say the attackers odds counting some of the civs into
>the total - ok, he's got a single tank driving around your sector with 999
>civs. They'll still get stuff done, but not as much). 

	I'd really rather not let units wander around in enemy sectors. It seems
very likely to be harder to code, and more prone to bugs/abuse, for a small
gain... As for tech based stuff.. If units get better with tech (more punch for
the dollar), this isn't all that necessary...

>This approach also leads to the new option: ALLYARMOR. You can't put your
>mil in allies sectors to help them out vs attacks, nut with this approach,
>you could send landunits and let them react to attacks as well, or you could
>fight a land war through an ally.
>
>I say put up a test game, and just do it. Test the rules, and see if
>they work as proposed. If they're good, keep them. If not change them.

	It's not quite that simple. This looks to be about a month to code, and
THEN a test game... That's why I'm trying to get this discussed right now, so
I won't have o make lots of fundamental changes... With 75K lines of code in
Empire, the last thing I want to do is add big things too hastily...

>
>kEvin
>sheep




Tom
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire