Build Hit Points not Units

[Theben]

I somewhat stole this from an old list idea. The original used population as hit points for a unit. I suggest that when a unit is being built, the "production" (and all that includes) goes towards making x# of hit points for the unit. This way:

1) You get a unit each turn of production. No more waiting 500 years for a phalanx (only 50!)!

2) "Shields", etc. aren't wasted;

3) You aren't committed to producing something for great periods of time.

This would of course need size requirements for units, for purposes of stacking, loading transports, etc. Later units would get more HP's per turn, based on the current 1/2/3/4 HP levels (barring the intervention of other new game concepts).

Comments?

[zyxpsilon]

Although the "Combat" system already takes what you mentioned into account on a much simpler scale, i'm definitely in favor of the principle.
How many times have i wished to spare an inflight bomber... weaked but still expansive?
What's an Howitzer worth if it has no maintenance crew attending to it's targeting variables?
Strength of units is one thing, diversity of capabilities is another.
Veteran status against "Military" grades.
Control the game, instead of watching it play.

-Captain Nemo to base; "We ran out of ammunition, what should we do?" Answer > "Good luck!"

Hit points ALL THE WAY! To build what's needed, only.

[Jeje2]

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 01-03-2001 02:16 AM 1) You get a unit each turn of production. No more waiting 500 years for a phalanx (only 50!)!

Auts
Now if this was true then try to conquer a city with one "very good" infantryunit...

Currently I have to vote no.
(But I reserve the right to change my vote, if more information about the idea and it's consequenses to the hole are provided.)

[JosefGiven]

Nah, don't like it.

I like to be able to look at my, and my enemies armies simultaneously, and judge at a glance what my chances are.

If all the units have wildly different stats, it would swiftly become impossible to see what's going on!



------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Adm.Naismith]

Theben, may be you used a bit my old post too, and that's fine for me

My suggestion was: because in CIV II and SMAC we already had the concept of unit strenght by hit points, we can consider a unit at 50% strenght as a damaged unit as a half force new unit. BTW JosefGiven, this can easily be showed by the same bar near the unit icon that we have now.

Usually real Armies tried to keep their units at nominal force, but in emergency time they built units at a reduced numbers, so building a unit we should have the button to rush a "reduced unit", e.g. very useful for defence from an incoming weak enemy (think about a citizen guard called at arms by a sounding bell ).

Of course you must change the way units are healed: not automatically and for free, on the field as in SMAC, but spending as many money as rush building them to the full in a SMAC building queue. This change to the rule is a need to avoid to have someone "cheating" weak & cheap units just to have them full force after a bunch of turns.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[loinburger]

The old list had an idea for "brigaded" and "heavy" units, the former being a light, shoddy unit and the latter being a unit with additional HP.

It seems to me that if you reduce the HP of, say, a phalanx, you would also reduce the fighting power of the unit; a phalanx depends on having enough people in it that they cannot be flanked. I have no problem in theory with being able to tailor a unit's HP (and Att/Def at the same time, or LASS if that is what is used), but the brigade/heavy option is much simpler. I've never been one for simplicity, but I know that others are. Brigade/heavy might be a compromise. Also, if advanced stacking options are allowed (for example, combining a tank unit and a mech. inf. unit, the result being greater than the sum of the parts), having too much freedom with unit strength could weaken this. Nevertheless, Diodorus Sicilus did pose the "unlimited freedom with unit tailoring" suggestion in the units workshop part of the old list.

Regardless of what unit options are given, I will be very pissed off if I look to find that I need one more shield to build a bomber, and then look next turn to find that the bomber has been built and NO progress has been made on the next queued unit.

[Urban Ranger]

I think this is a good idea in principle. Several observations:

1. Standard-sized units is a recent idea - not that old at any rate . This came after certain military doctrine had been developed. Before that, a nation just pick a number of armed men, say 50,000, and sent them at an enemy. That would mean a civ needs to develop a particular advancement before it can produce standard-sized units.

2. Military units of different sizes (say battalions vs divisions) can be marked by different symbols or flags, for example. That would avoid confusion. Symbols could be things such as bars and stars, etc.

[Cannes]

quote: Originally posted by technophile on 01-15-2001 09:23 PM Brigade/heavy might be a compromise. Also, if advanced stacking options are allowed (for example, combining a tank unit and a mech. inf. unit, the result being greater than the sum of the parts), having too much freedom with unit strength could weaken this. Nevertheless, Diodorus Sicilus did pose the "unlimited freedom with unit tailoring" suggestion in the units workshop part of the old list.

The way CTP stacking of units work, two units stacked become very much better than their individual strengths in almost all situations, so it doesn't really need to be that complicated to work.

[Boracks]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 01-15-2001 11:07 PM 1. Standard-sized units is a recent idea - not that old at any rate .

Napoleonic armies were organised around companies formed into battalions. A company could be 60-80 men (British), 120 men (French) or 160 men (Prussian) with other countries having variations on the theme. A battalion had 8 to 10 companies (British), 6 companies (French) or 4 Compnies (Prussian). And this is just the infantry, the cavalry was different!

My point? Essentially I agree with the idea of different strength units BUT there must be a balance somewhere. In the above example, you could say a battalion was 720 men, +/- 80 and be close enough. Companies varied wildly but battalions were fairly standard.

So I would use a battalion as a standard and allow some variation for bigger but fewer or smaller but more.



------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."