Re: Thoughts on the standard game

[Jan Jona Javorsek <jan.javorsek@guest.arnes.si>]

 On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Keir Novik wrote:

> I'm not satisfied with the way places protect their occupants.  I'm
> tired of seeing things like 
> 
> Your 2nd armor misses the Siamese town Upper Stepney.
>   (and destroys occupant the Siamese 1st fighter!)
>   (and destroys occupant the Siamese 4th infantry!)
>   (and destroys occupant the Siamese 5th infantry!)
> The Siamese town Upper Stepney throws back your 2nd armor!
> 

I beleive that the main problem (shown also by the latter comment that one
bomb can not damage several units) is one of language more than content.
The language of XConq's message often does not show that this is not one
bomber attacking with one bomb, but always a group consisting of more
individual units.  

The fact that an airborne attack can *miss* a city and *hit* something
*inside* the citty clearly makes no sense the way it is put, but we should
know that it means the attack made no substantional damage to the
structures in the city but damaget several units inside the city.

Perhaps some messages should be modified in this spirit?  Not with my
words, of course, my English is far too strange for that! :-)
(In a way it might be good to think about the difference between
repairable units, those that have several hit points, and non-repairable.
Are naval units groups of ships or individual ships? Etc.)

Jona