Complete.Org:
Mailing Lists:
Archives:
freeciv-dev:
August 2000: [Freeciv-Dev] more complex terrain advantages and disadvantages patch |
[Freeciv-Dev] more complex terrain advantages and disadvantages patch[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Hi again, as I posted recently, I admit that a lot of features in PG system are not very apropriate in freeciv. But more complex terrain advantages and disadvantages are very probably a Good Thing also for freeciv. And as far as I have seen, the replies on this feature were mostly very positive. So I made this patch today. The basic idea here is, that some units should have a terrain bonus, but some should have rather a "terrain antibonus" (or disadvantage). I have divided units to two groups according to this basic idea. The units in the first group are marked with flag Infantry_Type. They are: alpine troopes archers barbabarian leader diplomat engineers explorer fanatics legion marines musketeers paratroopers partisans phalanx pikemen riflemen settlers spy warriors The second units are marked as Armor_Type (well, it may sounds strange that both Knights and Armors are Armor_Type unit, but they both sure should have similar defense disadvantage in forrests, hills or mountains): armor artillery cannon caravan catapult cavalry chariot crusaders dragoons elephants freight horsemen howitzer knights mech. inf. I hope you agree with these groups. If you have any doubts, just imagine how would for example catapults or howitzers or horsemen cope with deep bushy forrests or rough rocky mountains (kazachstan style would be the best ;) The defense bonus for Inf_Type units remains the same: they get *1.0 on plain, grass, etc, *3/2 in forrests, *2.0 on hills and *3.0 in mountains. The defense bonus for Arm_Type units is inverted: they get *1.0 on plain, grass, etc, *2/3 in forrests, *1/2 on hills and *1/3 in mountains. The second idea is, that all unit types should get disadvantage on river squares and not advantage - I hope you agree with this. I definitly think it's more logical and realistic - just imagine a group of riflemen, who are just crossing the wild, bad river ;) and they are being attacked (let's say) by another group of riflemen. Which units should have the advantage - the first ones, who are just swimming and hardly surviving in the water, or the second ones, who are quitely picknicking on the bank and from time to time comfortably shooting ;) ? (According to this image, I also think units should not have move bonus on river, but rather move disadvantage - but this patch does not take care about that). River defense disadvantage is implemented very simply - I just reverted +50% terrain river bonus to -50% terrain river bonus. Here is the list of changed files and functions: server/unitfunc.c: get_simple_defense_power(); get_virtual_defense_power(); server/unittools.c: get_defense_power(); enemies_at(); server/settlers.c: city_desirability(); ai/aiunit.c: find_beachhead(); data/default/units.ruleset (added F_ARM_TYPE and F_INF_TYPE flags) common/unittype.c (added Armor_Type and Infantry_Type names of flags) common/unittype.h (added F_ARM_TYPE and F_INF_TYPE flags) I have made some brief testing, and all seemed to work fine for me in 2 (human) players game: some catapults survived attacks of warriors and phalanx on grass terrain, but were terribly smashed on hills and mountains. I think this require longer and deeper testing (are here any volunteers?). We also have to check, if the game balance was not changed too much. But I think it's right if Armors are wiped by Rifflemen in hills or mountains, etc. I think this feature is definitly positive. It force players to use more unit types and so makes game more variable. Note: This patch should also include a new server option, which would turn this advanced feature on/off and it should also change some help entries. I decided not to spend time with these changes untill this terrain feature is fully accepted and tested.
terrain_bonus.gz
|