Wacky Ideas

Sectors

Limit the amount of commodities (by weight) allowed to be kept on a
bridge, and have a stacking limit for units on a bridge. (Bridges can
only support so much weight eh?)
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

build tu
At a price, build a tunnel through a mountain sector. This would turn
a ^ into a + at some great cost.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

autodemob 11,11 35 y
"autodemob" is to "demob" what "autonav" is to "nav". The principle is
simple: "autodemob 11,11 35 y" means every update, demob all the mil
in 11,11 except for 35. ( note - makes budget more complex - Oliver
Ricou )
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

We need some Empire command which lets you do a lot of moving at once
with minimal BTU cost. Here would be one possible syntax: multimove
<ITEM> <SECTS> <THRESHOLD> <DISTSECT> <MINMOB> This is just like
distribute at the update. It would distribute commodities between
<SECTS> and <DISTSECT> depending on <THRESHOLD> (which applies to the
<SECTS>), and only doing moves provided that the mobility doesn't fall
below <MINMOB> in any of the sectors involved: empire [124,512]%
multimove f * ?civ>20 40 1,1 40 An alternate symtax could be:
multimove <ITEM>
where existing distribution thresholds are used.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Ships

swap [s|p|l] <UNIT1> <UNIT2>
Swap the id numbers of units so you can control the order in which
they are built. In order to swap the numbers, the units must be in the
same sector, and the sector must be either a h/*/! as appropriate.
WARNING: this could be seriously abused!
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

nuclear subs consume rads as fuel? need rads to build nuc sub?
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

In fuel command, one petrol should be worth 20 oil. right now it is
more efficient to fuel ships and units with oil rather than with
petrol.
( in this one, it would probably be better IMHO to get rid of fueling
with oil altogether - Ken H.)
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Make assaulting cost ship mobility. This would help stop the ability
to assault with a small amount of mil over and over until
reacting units run out of mobility.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Instead of being able to just upgrade a ship's tech, it would be nice
if there were some method for actually upgrading the ship.
iow, turn all of my sub1's into sub2's, that sort of thing.
        submitted by Michael J. Feuell <elf@Crocker.Com> 2 Jan 96

Planes

Allow transport planes to paradrop land units. (This would be
realistic.) Would use the following analogy:
Units on Planes         Units on Ships
x-light                 assault
para                    marine
cargo                   light
So, "cargo" units could be transported, "x-light" units could paradrop
but at a serious disadvantage and would lose all mob, and "para" units
could paradrop like marines could assault (with full attack and
reduced mob loss).
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

planes should mobility when loaded and unloaded from a ship.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Have an aquatic plane type. This would be a medium to small cargo
plane, that must be built in an airport but can only take off froma
harbor, or sea sector. While on the water, it could tend, however, not
be able to nav. It might, or might not be able to lay/sweep mines. And
fuel is another issue that would need to be looked into.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

perhaps the range a plane can fly should be limited by its efficiency.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Land Units

trans l <FROMSECT> <TOSECT>
to use sector mobility to transport a land unit from one sector to
another.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Make a new kind of land unit (transport trucks) which can carry land
units in a similar way that ships can carry units. This would allow
you to transport heavy artillery and unmechanized infantry around
faster. (This would be a realistic change).
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Have very expensive land units called spies:
                       lcm hcm mil guns shells avail tech  $
spy 1                      10   0   1    0      0     2    0  $2000
spy 2                      10   0   1    0      0     2    0  $5000
spy 3                      10   0   1    0      0     2    0  $8000
Spies can march through enemy territory and llook in there. Every
update, there will be a chance the spy is caught. Also there is a
chance it will be caught every time it moves in enemy territory and
every time it does an "lloo". It will be completely unaffected by
combat. The chance of detection should be something like: spy 1 10%,
spy 2 5%, spy 3 2%.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

land units should lose mob when loaded/unloaded from a ship.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Mobile headquarters unit type - capable of repairing land units by
using mobility, supplies, and mil. How about just letting engineers
work on units also?
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

This idea synthesizes a couple of currently-submitted "wacky ideas":
New land unit:  "Airborne Infantry" (i.e., the 101st Airborne Division)
Abilities:  may be paradropped, at mob cost similar to marine assault.
offensive/defensive modifiers should be less than normal inf divisions.
Tech level should be around 190.
Air transports may need to be modified to carry land units, but only those
with new "airborne" flag (could include light armor and supply units),
OR a new transport type (representing the number of planes required to 
drop a full division) could be added for airdropping units only (use 
regular transports for dropping mil & supplies).
consider coding the efficiency of the units upon drop as = the efficiency
of the dropping transport unit at time of drop.  (The transport unit in
this case represents a large number of planes; if efficiency is down, then
some of the planes didn't make it thru.) 
"Hey, where's Charlie company?"
        submitted by Rich Kabakjian <rak@netaxs.com> 08 Dec 95

Combat

frontline <UNITS>
When a unit is created, it is automatically put on the frontline
(except for artillery and supply units). This means that when you
attack an adjacent sector, you will be asked if you want to include
this unit in the attack.
backline <UNITS>
When a unit is put on a mission, it is automatically put on the
backline. This means that when you attack, you won't be asked about
attacking with this unit. Also, supply units and artillery are born on
the backline. When attacking with units, allow the user to type Y,
rather than typing y for all the units you want to attack with. Y
would mean "attack with all units on the frontline". At the attack
prompt, you will be asked: Attack with infantry #3 (y/n/Y/N/b)? and
the "b" will mean "backline". This would be particularly handy when
attacking with a bunch of units and you want to leave some of them
behind to hold the beach-head. And you want to stop being prompted for
them.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

Information

I've been thinking some on the subject of names. I find that
ahip names get in my way, but I feel that there is a place for names
to be very useful. Land masses should have names! A detailed
discussion of this is probably not right here, but suffice it to
say that I think land mass names would be beneficial to all. Realism
is served, along with making it easier to discuss strategy with allies.
I get bored talking about "That island north of your harbor." The
abuse potential is limited, I think to more rapid ally location, but
then, it is still fuzzy. Island/continents should be more than
'-16:-8,-6,-2". I'm not clear on the coding details, but it shouldn't
be all that hard.
Andrew
        submitted by Andrew Gilmore <gilmorea@ucsub.colorado.edu> 03 Jan 96

Miscellanious

national happiness should be affected by your victories/losses, and if
you drown your mil (by scuttle/scrap) or starv your populace.
        submitted by Ken Stevens <children@empire.net> 01 Dec 95

I wish there was somewhere some HD-space left for an empire-players-photo-collection.
I sometimes exchanged pictures with other empire players, it was allways great fun and
all of them told me that such an idea wasnt too bad at all. It would be really great to know
how your ally/enemy looks like. Of course the upload of a photo would be voluntary,
special Fantasy-pictures/logos of rulers would be allowed.
I know that the "empire-makers" are purists somehow, but it IS the time of multimedia and
it would be really fun to lots of players.
Guenther
        submitted by Guenther Bachorz <bachorz@neckar-alb.de> 24 Jan 96