This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: New version of bolodd2.g that supports change-type
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Lincoln Peters <sampln at sbcglobal dot net>
- Cc: Xconq list <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:51:27 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: New version of bolodd2.g that supports change-type
Hi Lincoln, others,
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Lincoln Peters wrote:
> Perhaps some of the LOTR images would also be useful; probably
> "ancient-black-city" would be more appropriate for capitals than
> "parthenon" (or at least it would be more dramatic).
Yes, interesting suggestion. I need to find some way of making the
city and air units distinguishable. Your suggestion may help me
with the city units, but the PG (and other) aircraft images are
pretty much unsuitable for Bellum's air units.
The problem with the PG aircraft images is that they are all too
narrow and are generally side-on views. What I really need is
something like a top or elevated angle view of a P-38 Lightning
for Escort Fighters, a Ju-87 Stuka (possibly in dive) for Dive
Bombers, and a B-17, B-24, or B-29 for Bombers (the "2e" and "4e"
images really aren't beefy enough, AFAIAC). I think that
indicating Torpedo Bombers is a bit more problematic; the only
solution I can think of is to show something like a Devastator or
Avenger (or even a Japanese Kate) having just released its
torpedo....
> I'm also going to try incorporating some of the Trident and PG images
> into bolodd3.g (so that, for example, it will be possible to tell the
> exact type of artillery you're looking at by the image alone). So far
> it looks promising.
Good luck with that.
> What I did to avoid this problem in bolodd2.g (and now in bolodd3.g) was
> to allow each unit to have negative ACP equal to 1 minus their ACP per
> turn (so that a unit that gets 4 ACP per turn can go down to -3).
> Unlike giving units free ACP, this actually lets the ACP usage balance
> out in the end.
Yes. I have mixed feelings about ACP debts:
On the one hand, they can be useful for simulating supressing
fire. In sequential play, a unit could come under attack or fire,
and have its ACP drained into the negatives, so that the next
turn it cannot act but simply must recover ACP.
OTOH, it may be annoying to a player to have up and down surges in
what his/her units can and cannot do. By not using 'acp-min' or
'free-acp' or whatever, the player gets a consistent feel for how
much action a unit type can do in a turn.
So, I am still undecided on this one. I'll see how things go, once
I get the game back into a playtestable form....
Regards,
Eric