Re: Request For Comments...

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>Having played in a few games recently, I thought I'd throw out a few
>ideas/thoughts that cover a gamut of topics that I'd be interested in
>getting a wider audience's perspective on.

>To the topics:

>1) Rotating Updates

As you said, you can play, and make some updates. With a fixed update 
time, my decision to play  solo depends mainly on the update time.
And here have been many games I passed due to that....

>Could we, therefore, go back to the update "norm" being static
>updates?

"we"? Every Deity decides on his own. Some of them ask their players,
Run a game, set an update time, and see how players like that.




>2) Defensive artillery (land-based)

>I've chatted with a few people on the idea of defensive artillery
>(i.e. return fire) having a greater range than offensive artillery.  I
>believe this used to be in the game.  I like this idea.  Why did this
>not work?

I'm sure, AK, Mith, Ski, Ice, and a couple of others come up
with some idea to use this in a way contrary to its intention :)

>3) The "anti" command

>I hate it.  It's made life way too easy for invaders to roll one nation
>and move onto the next.  An invadee only has 1 update of "hope"
>where his che can kick in and fight for the love of his nation.  As
>soon as an enemy gains mobility, it's game over (typically) for those
>potential rebels.  And it's more micro-management.  Very annoying
>(but you have to use it if it's there).

As I played games before "anti" - I won't miss it.

Run a game, disable the command, and see how players like that.


>4) Terrorists (aka land spies w/ "sabotage")

>Never have really used land spies before.  Undecided as to their
>game value (i.e. I understand the role they play ala spy planes, but
>not sure they're really necessary?  not explaining myself well, I'm
>afraid).

necessary? no.
fun? sometimes.
you can balance their use by the cost of spy units.
If you don't like them at all - remove them from the unit list.
Run a game, and see how players like that.


>But to further augment them with the ability to sabotage just annoys
>me.  Perhaps I'm just tired of hearing about all the suicide bombers
>in the middle east (and I haven't had to hear about places getting
>nuked or strat bombed, so I'm still enamored with those ideas in
>empire) but do we really need this further offensively minded
>capability?

necessary? NO.
fun? sometimes

see above.



>5) Treaties

>Any chance of revisiting the treaty command to try and accomodate
>the format/structure of NA's that are commonly used today?
>Obviously it can't reflect things like "don't muck with my ally", but
>for basics around non-aggression and duration, it should be feasible.
>Would anyone use this?


I don't think that the nature of treaties can be captured 
by that command. 




>6)  I'd like to revisit an idea that was previously discussed back in
>92-96: Unit stacking limits

>Most "new" wargames I've played recently have a notion of stack
>limits (granted, my sample-size may be small). 

Some wargames have this for efficiency reasons, as some significant grafical
load is related to the number of units.



> Empire seems to
>be the one exception.  Now, it may be that I'm just jaded having
>recently faced some truly massive unit stacks, but they seem to
>completely throw the balance of things out of whack.

>Rather than throw out my comments about the whys and wherefores,
>I'd be curious to hear what other people's opinions on this are.

This point has been addressed before, referring to reality:
Stacks of units should be  slower than single units (traffic jam).

Stupid, spontaneous idea:

calculate mob costs proportional to the number of units in that sector.
Makes moving large groups of units a nightmare, and the units less effective.


Small change to the code, then run a game, and ... ;)



>Do you think it's good to have sectors with stacks of 80 units?  Are
>stacks of 12 artillery a good thing?  Would the idea that if I wanted
>to attack with multiple units, I would need multiple sectors to attack
>from, right?  Do stacks aid an oppressor or a defender? 

Stacks of attackers against stacks of defenders.....


> Is it even
>feasible (Wolfpack bros) to implement stack limits on units?  Should
>this also apply to ship-based "units" (i.e. do away with the 50 fb +
>20 bb + 30 dd + 20 ls invasion fleets)?

stacks of subs and hats will do :)


>Okay - so I'll make one comment on this... or rather, I'll refer to a
>comment that was made by someone else some time again that I
>think reflects my current ponderings on this:

>>From Jim Ortlieb, Head Junkie of the CrackHouse, circa 1996:

>> Due to the changes in planes and the addition of land units, it costs
>> more to defend the same area.  See, previously I could put 300 mil in
>> a sector and it was defended easily because the attacker needed
>> enough mobility to attack from the surrounding sectors.  NOW, each
>> unit brings its own mobility into the fight.  Thus, the "stacking
>> limit" which was once there is now lost.  (We'll call this is the
>> mobility factor.)

>Thanks for any comments you feel up to offering....

>Mr. Ed - Dottering Fool of Resvon


mobility is a scarce resource that needs more attention than all others.

Some of your topics are easy to adress, as the wolfpack code of today
is flexible enough. 
  
The benefit  of unit stacks to the game  is debatable at least, but so is
 a unit stack limit...

The leader of the Mongol_Horde