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: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:01:21 -0800 (PST)

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

They do climb hills all the time ;-). You're right in that the idea that anyone
would go climbing the Himalayan range is ridiculous. On the other hand, the
puny excuse for mountains in Europe(Alps) could be crossed by an overweight

> 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.

Not in certain chunks of the world. I'd love to see how the explorers in Tibet
managed to avoid hills. Switzerland also sticks in my mind as another place
where explorers did not avoid hilly terrain.
> > 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.)

So you are proposing that in real life cannons move close to an opponent before
attacking? Your argument is far sillier. Freeciv badly needs the concept of
range, but until that blessed day, the idea that artillery should be on high
ground should be rewarded.

> 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.

I hate the fact that currently if I battle Evil_Per, I cannot use tactics to
defeat him. There is no way for me to use artillery on high ground,
combined tactics with aircraft and ground units to beat you. There is one and
only one way to win. More units.

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

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