Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 1999:
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] bug? bomber/artillery stack killed by riflemen
Home

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] bug? bomber/artillery stack killed by riflemen

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Andrew E. Schulman" <andrex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv Development List <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Freeciv-Dev] bug? bomber/artillery stack killed by riflemen
From: Stephen Hodge <stephenh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:43:55 +1100

"Andrew E. Schulman" wrote:
> > Are suggesting that the bomber should ignore attacking units by default
> > and let the ground units get slaughtered?
> 
...

> Realize that the Civ1/2 rule in question doesn't say that a bomber
> contributes strong defense to a stack of ground units.  It says that if an
> air unit is present in a square, then no ground units may attack that
> square.  This is, in my opinion, totally unrealistic.  Ground units should
> still be able to attack the ground units in that square, of course at the
> risk of getting nailed by nearby air units.

Ok, I agree, although there are a few points I want to make.
First, I still think we should maintain Civ2 compatiblity, preferably as
an option, in which case the situation that started this thread is a bug
which needs to be fixed.
Second, I think 'realism' in the combat rules was thrown out long before
air units became involved just through the 'one attacker vs one
defender' system. At the very least, if you want to start developing a
realistic combat system, each unit in the defensive stack should
conribute to the defense, not just the strongest. Similarly attaking
with more than one unit simultaneously is something that should be
possible under any even slightly realistic combat system.
Thirdly, I think whole idea of 'realism' in FreeCiv is pointless because
Civ is not meant to be an accurate simulation of anything. When we
consider changes to the rules we should be less worried about 'is this
realistic' (although obviously it has to be a consideration) and more
worried about 'how does this change the balance, strategy, and feel of
the game'. For example we could add 500 more technologies. That would be
realistic, but it would ruin the game by making it too complicated.

Regards,
Steve Hodge


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]