Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Idea/suggestion: Different heights

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Idea/suggestion: Different heights

[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: Idea/suggestion: Different heights
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:24:43 -0800 (PST)

--- "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Alan Schmitt wrote:
> > Civ 3 uses such a line of sight thing: you see much farther on a
> > mountain (but you don't see behind mountains) than in the plains. It
> > leads to interesting things in the exploration phase of the game, where
> > one tries to hop from mountain to mountain.
> ... which is just so silly when you actually stop to think about it.

I'm not with you here mate. I've tended to notice that my ability to spot
increases the higher up I am.  It's the entire basis behind satellites, and
reconaissance aircraft.

> Downhill attack bonus is also dumb. Not to mention rather counter
> intuitive - and no other wargame I can think of has it - so this would be
> a RTFM feature.

Hmmm ... I don't know. The downhill attack bonus only makes sense for ranged
units. It would be silly for units that go for hand-to-hand combat getting a
bonus. I think the bonus should only apply for units like artillery, cannon
catapault etc.

> So I'm opposed to both features, if that matters.
> Yours,
> Per
> "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men,
> for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of
> us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

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