Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: port attacks!

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

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: port attacks!
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:52:38 -0800 (PST)

--- Jason Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Heh. Some might think this is only accurate. Think about it. How the hell
does any land based unit defend a transport against a sub attack? It is
accurate to have the sub come out of nowhere to kill sea based units. It is
the entire basis of the sub unit in the first place. No Coastal defence can
properly defend against subs, unless you want to turn the harbour into a death
trap from which no one can escape.

> 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.

Ridiculous. This opens up the situation where subs can kill land units.
I think we can safely say no to this scenario.

> 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?

Interesting. This tends to make subs less useful than Per's solution.

> 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.

Not bad. I don't want to code this. This seems to require a new
flag(RETREAT_FROM), and tons of AI code, yeck.

> All of these solutions require significantly more code than what you 
> have, I think.  And none of them are truly satisfactory IMO.

IMO Per's solution is fine as is.

The only alternative I want to have is that airbased units, especially
helicopters, have big defensive bonuses against subs. A lot easier to
code than your suggestions.

> jason

Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!

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