[Freeciv-Dev] Re: units.ruleset docu patch 2

["Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > -description="Default unit_type data for Freeciv (as Civ2, minus a few
> > units)"
> > +description="Default unit_type data for Freeciv"
>
> I could have sworn we were still missing Fanatics.

Fanatics, Crusaders and Elephants, AFAIK. But having freeciv default rules
equal to civ2's isn't a stated goal, so there is no point in putting
emphasis on that. IMHO, we should look at importing some civ3 ideas in
here soon.

> > +; obsolete_by   = can be upgraded to and made obsolete by another unit by
> > name
>
> This is implemented in a very annoying way. Phalanx obsolete warriors, but
> Pikemen do not. Since Pikemen obsolete phalanx, and phalanx obsolete warriors,
> gaining feudalism should result in the removal of warriors. This really annoys
> me!
>
> Basically, I would like like to see some intelligence in deciding if units are
> obsolete. If A is made obsolete by B, and B is made obsolete by C, if you gain
> the ability to build C, A should also be made obsolete.

Hard to do right with tech lists that are not cleanly structures as trees.
That they must be cleanly structured trees is a bad assumption.

> >  ; move_type     = "Land" or "Sea" or "Air" or "Heli"
>
> You need to mention the difference between Heli and Air. Heli can take over a
> city square with no defenders whereas Air cannot.

Aren't there more differences too? Do Heli units use fuel? Can they land
on Carriers? Heli units can carry paratroopers, no? Never used them.

> Is it number of turns? I thought it was number of tiles they can move across 
> in
> 2 turns.

Huh? Find the first reference to "fuel" in ai/aiunit.c

> > +; "Carrier"        = can transport air and missile units, but not land 
> > units
> > +; "Missile_Carrier" = can transport only missiles, but no land units
>
> Like I said, this is a bad implementation. It would make more sense to make
> Carrier an air unit only transport. If someone wanted to duplicate the current
> functionality of aircraft carriers, he would have to use both flags, Carrier
> and
> Missile_Carrier.
>
> At the very least, there is a need for aircraft only transport.

Outside the scope of this patch, though.

> > +; "Fighter"        = can attack airborne units (no other units can 
> > normally do
> > this)
>
> What restrictions are on this flag? If I create a a new unit, called SAM
> battery, with same stats as mech inf(it is a ground unit) but with this flag,
> can it attack fighters?

AFAIK, yes.

> > +; "Settlers"       = can irrigate and build roads
>
> So we can have worker units that only build and irrigate.

Yes.

> > +; "AttackStrong"= AI hint: strong attacker (unused)
>
> Why the hell not? Should be used for battleships and howitzers and tanks.

I believe the AI does its own computation of what is good for attacking.
This flag is probably not needed.

Yours,
Per

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch."
 -- Jack Nicholson