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: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: port attacks!
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:12:46 -0800 (PST)

--- "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jason Short wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't see why. Port attacks have, historically, been a significant part
> of modern warfare, and subs were very much part of that. Unfortunately, we
> don't have torpedo bombers (or whatever they are called), but this code
> enables them for future rulesets.
> >  Perhaps if there is a coastal
> > fortress, the submarine cannot attack?  This at least gives the
> > transport some possible defense.
> Ok. I see the need to balance this, and this suggestion would balance it
> out nicely, I think. After all, it is not like submarines are very
> powerful as is. Ironclads and battleships rule the seas.
> The AI doesn't need to learn about this, it already knows that coastal
> fortresses work against seaborne units.
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > 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.
> Hmm, not really. Anyway, it may not only be subs, but any unit with
> F_NO_LAND_ATTACK, which may even be another aircraft. Of course, you might
> say that aircraft get bonuses against any _seaborne_ F_NO_LAND_ATTACK
> unit, but then the rules start becoming rather complex.

We can cheat and check the attacking unit type, nah, even as I type this I hate
the idea. Possibly a flag, NO_GOOD_AGAINST_AIR.

> You can always sink the sub with your airplanes/helicopters afterwards.
> That's even more realistic, come to think of it :)

I was more trying to simulate the protective effect of helis/planes. The
never even dared go near a convoy that was protected by planes.

> > I like the look of it. You realise the AI needs to know about this little
> > change. I'm also amazed that these are the only lines that need changing.
> > I'm sure there are various flags in the code that check if no_land_attack.
> The AI isn't told. Correct. It currently ignores F_NO_LAND_ATTACK units
> completely, and don't count them as a threat. Obviously, that would have
> to be changed, and all that needs to be done is to delete the last line
> below.

No, there is also the 

 bool is_ai_simple_military(Unit_Type_id type)
 return !unit_type_flag(type, F_NONMIL)
 && !unit_type_flag(type, F_MISSILE)
 && !unit_type_flag(type, F_NO_LAND_ATTACK) <---- Must Go 

In order to get the AI to actually use subs.

I like your patch. I think it should go in.

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

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