Re: Standard Game Graphics

[Jim Kingdon <kingdon at panix dot com>]

> I suppose some people have been looking at the old graphics for so
> long that anything new will seem alien and objectionable....

Well, sure, and I'm trying to separate the familiarity effect from the
real pros and cons.

* The bomber and fighter look fairly similar to each other, especially
  when they are incomplete units (there is no color difference in this
  case).

* The infantry doesn't show up all that well against the forest
  terrain.

As for not being easy to distinguish when they are small, yes, that
seems true.

For my own play, as long as it is a variant I'm sure I can figure out
which one I like and pick it.  But for people who don't play as much
xconq, or are trying it anew, the decision we make is more important.
On the one hand, I'm tempted to say try the trident images at least
for a while, and see how they stand the test of time.  That way at
least it doesn't seem as if xconq is permanently and unalterably
ossified.  But my other impulse is to make the trident images a
variant for a while and see if they get a following (that way, perhaps
avoiding a mistake which might make xconq look bad, and giving a
chance to notice/solve problems).

> 1.  Make specific imf 4 4 definitions that reference
> the old silhouettes

But then the shape would vary at different sizes.  I think you'd want
to concoct new 4x4's which are silhouette-like, but whose shapes are
more similar to the larger versions.

> 2.  Set unit limits per hex at four

Doesn't seem like a small change (either from the gameplay point of
view, or the occupant point of view, or whatever).  It might be a good
idea - it just seems like it would take a while to get this right.

In an unrelated matter, the help screens don't seem to list the fact
that only cities (not towns) can develop nukes in the standard game.
This would be acp-to-develop and tech-to-develop.