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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> 

We've got Elephants and Crusaders. We're only missing Fundamentalism and
Fanatics.

> > > +; 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.
> 

I was thinking of a slightly different approach. Stick another obsolete by for
warriors to include pikemen as well as phalanx. The other obsolete bys for
units are far better designed. It is impossible to riflemen before musketeers,
dragoons before cavalry, tanks before cavalry etc.

 
> > >  ; 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.
> 

Thanks for making my point for me ;-). Heli units do use fuel, but they lose
hps instead of crashing. I never knew helis could carry units. I think not. 

> > 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
> 

OK.

> > > +; "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.
> 

True, but something I'd like to see.

> > > +; "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.
> 

Thanks for the info. There are no restrictions on this flag, good to know.

> > > +; "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.
>

The AI also does its own calcs on what units defend well, we still have defend
good and attack ok flags. Don't forget, barb units also use these hints.
 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/