[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: port attacks!

[Jason Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
>
> > > No_Land_Attack means no attacks against any target on land. If you use
> > > this on an aircraft, it would not be able to attack enemy aircraft _as
> > > long as they are over dry land_. Well, you _could_ make a torpedo bomber
> > > using this, though... but it could not attack ships inside cities...
> > > I'll clarify the comment.
> > >
> > > But why can't subs (and other hypothetical units with No_Land_Attack)
> > > attack ships in cities? I think this should be changed.  Should I add a
> > > FIXME?
> > Yes, I think so. Per, this is another in the category of "Why didn't I think
> > of that?"
> The attached patch fixes this. Now subs can do port attacks! Lots of fun!
> It is tested and it works as expected. Please take it for a ride and tell
> the list if it works, so that it can go in, please :)
That's quite a hack...


This patch gives a great offensive advantage to submarines.  No amount 
of land units in a city will be able to protect a transport from the 
submarine.  This is clearly Not Right.  Perhaps if there is a coastal 
fortress, the submarine cannot attack?  This at least gives the 
transport some possible defense.
One alternative is to say a submarine can attack into any city that 
contains any sea unit, but the defender may use land units to defend 
against it.  This doesn't seem quite right, either, since one transport 
in a city will open up all of the land units to being killed by the 
transport.
A third choice is to say a submarine may only attack a city that 
contains _only_ sea units.  This makes a little bit of sense, and is 
balanced as well.  But it does mean a unit of settlers could protect a 
transport from the submarine.  So maybe it should be a city that has no 
*military* land units?
A fourth possibility is to say the submarine may try to attack, but if 
the defender is a land unit the attack must be called off (probably with 
a lost move).  This would be slightly balanced.
All of these solutions require significantly more code than what you 
have, I think.  And none of them are truly satisfactory IMO.
jason