Re: Request For Comments...

Markus Armbruster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> Could we, therefore, go back to the update "norm" being static
>> updates?
> 
> Ultimately, this depends on players.  If enough players want fixed
> update times, deities will run games with fixed update times.
> 
This option IMHO should be absolutely let to deities.

> I can't find any trace of this in the code.
> 
> Do you have an idea when this used to be in the game?  It would make
> it much easier for me to look for it in ancient versions of the code.
> 
Ken Stevens aka children (who should be well known to Mr. Ed) introduced
a rule that the return fire from any firing object was receiving a +1
bonus. Some people decided it was stalemating the game and was bad, 
therefore it was one of the first things removed in post-children era
of the Empire server.

>> 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).
> 
> Agreed.  It's pretty high up my personal list of things I'd like to
> get rid of.
> 
> Some people whose judgement I respect tell me the whole concept of che
> needs a redesign.
> 
IMHO we need a tool for deities to configure the server with 
disabling/enabling various commands and capabilities. This also refers
to sabotage. It seems that in LOTR II the price of sabotaging units
was too low.

> An alternative approach: limit effectiveness of large stacks.  Let
> combat strength add up up only to a suitable limit (number of units,
> number of men, whatever), then give diminishing returns.  This
> approach is not used for classical boardgames, since there you have to
> keep the calculations as simple as possible.  Stacking limits, on the
> other hand, are no real problem there.  Computer games are different.
> 
Consider that marching a unit through a sector would cost
normal_cost*(1+0.05*amount_of_units_in_source_sector+
0.05*amount_of_units_in_the_destination_sector) It would add a significant
amount of military micromanagement! As for attacking, I can only see the
penalty applied only in the "after-attack" mobility reduction.
IMHO a stack limit should not be too difficult to implement.
Let the size of the marching army be X. Let the size of the stationary
army on the way of X be Y. Let the stack limit be L. Then, if X+Y>L, 
the sector is treated as an unpassable sector that you cannot enter.
As if it were deity owned, for example. Again, it adds some micromanagement
but to lesser extent. The ships might be treated the same way. You may set
the stack limit in regular sectors to 1*L, in e-centers and capitals to 
1.2*L, in airports and harbors to 2*L, and in hq-s to 5*L.

-- 
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                    http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work),        +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
                -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann