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

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

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > ... 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 things increases the higher up I am.  It's the entire basis
> behind satellites, and reconaissance aircraft.

Explorers do not climb mountains do get a better view. Ever tried to climb
a mountain? The notion is just hillarious. Think for a moment about the
scale of things here.

Historically explorers sailed the seas and rivers to map the world, and
when that was done, they went on horseback, and I'll wager they avoided
hills whenever they could.

> 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.

I think the idea behind terrain bonuses is that when you attack, the
attacking unit _moves into_ the tile of the defender. Thus cannons,
catapults et al should be penalised, not given bonuses, for moving from a
tile with difficult terrain. (Not that I propose adding this as rule.)

The civ3 concepts of units "shooting" over to another tile and that silly
fog of war rule mentioned earlier make a mockery of the level of
abstraction we're operating at.

Yours,
Per

PS What happened to that triremes-sailing-rivers patch that was floating
around some time ago? I thought it was cute.

"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