From: ts@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire
Subject: Re: Land Units
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:03:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <67637@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <Bu1x49.1x2@world.std.com> kovar@world.std.com (David C Kovar) writes:
>
>[New class of units may make the game too complex]
>
>Thank you, David; I was afraid that I was the only person who feels this way.
>
>While I think all the new programming efforts (especially Tom's) have been 
>a boon to the game, I think it may be starting to go overboard with this wave
>of enthusiasm over land units, with each proposal more complex than the last.
> 
>Here's something to think about, for all you old-timers out there: do you 
>remember the days of 0.9.28 empire?  Compare that to the KSU and Merc and 
>Chainsaw code we have today.  If you think about it, you will probably (at 
>least I do) realize that while your enjoyment of the game hasn't changed, 
>the complexity and time required to play well has increased signifigantly.
>Has it been worth it?

	It's definitely an issue. One of the things I've tried to do is fix
some of the annoying parts of empire, things that detracted from enjoyment,
such as not being able to trade planes by flying them to an allied airport,
or not being able to take an enemy ship in your harbor without a ship there.
These sorts of changes are very beneficial because they increase enjoyment 
WITHOUT adding complexity. Remember the first game you played in that included
distribute? I sure do. I've tried my best to do these things, but they're
usually HARDER to do than most changes (because finding new ways to think
about old things is a lot harder than thinking of good new things)

	Now, I think most empire players would admit to enjoying planes, due
mostly, I think, to the fact that they're instant gratification, and they're
simple. Yes, simple. Once the basic concepts are grasped, they're easy to use.
Ships, on the other hand, are harder to use, because you need to attend to
them semi-individually, and there weren't good ways to use them as fleets. To
countrer this a bit, I added multiple firing (so an entire fleet could fire
at once with a single command), and retreat options (so fleets/ships could
show some intelligence while you weren't watching them) Certainly  these add a
bit of complexity, but what fun was it to log in and find out that your entire
fleet was sunk because you weren't logged in? The UA sea-claiming code is also
a step forward, imho, although I'm not quite happy with it as it is. Land
units, as suggested, share more characteristics with planes than ships, and
I think they will only be about as complex as planes, and will add a good bit of
realism, playability, and stability to the game I tried very hard when thinking
about land units to think of how they'd be used, and tried to limit complexity.
(Whether I've succeeded or not is, of course, another matter :-)

	There's a classic debate in wargame design: realism vs. playability. 
A more realistic game is less playable, but both realism and playability
increase enjoyment. The trade-offs involved are a matter of taste. Some
lean to one side, some to the other.

	All I can say is that if you want to, you can still play that
0.9.28 code, or straight BSD, or KSU, or MERC, or any of the steps along
the way, or you could go back and play PSL empire. I don't insist that my code
is the best, or that you should play it, and especially I don't want to try to
make you play my way. I'm just adding OPTIONS to the game that I think are
interesting, and that add skill to the game. I hope that enough people will find
these additions enjoyable that I'll have people to play with, but they are
OPTIONS. If people don't like them, they'll die out (as, I think, the BABYNUKE -
1 sector nuke option) has already died out :-)

Thomas
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire