[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Ironclads are easy.

[Paul Dean <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thue <thue@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wednesday 03 January 2001 19:40, Maciej Czapkiewicz wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Thue wrote:
> > > I agree. So how about changing the prerequisites from
> > >
> > > physics
> > > invention
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > physics
> > > metallurgy
> >
> > Good idea, but I forgot about one important thing:
> > in this situation, Ironclad should have 5/4/4 (attack power 5),
> > attack power 4 is too obsolete in Metallurgy era (coastial defence etc).
> 
> No, I think 4 is fine; remember that it has 30 hit points, so it really is 
> quite powerfull. Also, the destroyer, which comes after the point where we 
> inserted the destroyer, only has 4 attack.
> So maybe it will not win every time against a coastal defence, but nether 
> should it

But remember that it will be fighting musketeers.  If people actually
built coastal defences, then the musketeers would be about as much
better than ironclads as ironclads are presently better than
phalanxes.

Of course, they won't be building many coastal defences because a) if
they're a good player, they'll be attacking you instead and b) if
they're a bad player then they won't have the technology to do so
anyway.

So what I think the outcome would be: it would make it slightly more
difficult(or longer) for experienced players to steam-roller new
players, and when two good players play eachother, they might be
forced to wait for cruisers.  So I wouldn't object to the change and
it does seem a very reasonable one, but I wouldn't expect it to have a
big effect on anything.

-- 
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/