[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Civ 2 Style Fighters

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, Raahul, what does you Civ2 manual say about Fighters attacking 
Stealth Bombers?  Can they do it?

Also I have a problem with Stealth Bombers obsoleting Bombers.  Bombers 
cost 120 shields and have attack of 12.  Stealth Bombers cost 160 shields 
and have attack 14 (they have higher defence but they can still fall prey 
to Fighters).  Obsoleting rules mean that you are forced to build Stealth 
although they are not much better and much more expensive.  

And they still cannot take out a battleship (success prob 7%), which also 
cost the same amount!!  In fact, nothing can take out a battleship (while 
in reality it's a vulnerable target for planes).

I guess a more balanced situation would be:
Battleship: 
vulnerable vs advanced planes and missiles
not vulnerable vs other marine units (exc. battleship)
AEGIS Cruiser:
not vulnerable vs any air units
vulnerable vs some marine units (battleship, submarine)

Bomber:
good attack except against SAM or AEGIS-defended units
vulnerable vs fighters
Stealth:
excellent attack except against AEGIS-defended units
vulnerable vs Stealth fighters
very costly (maybe even 2 shields a turn to maintain)
Missiles:
two take out a battleship with profit


This way there would be no unstoppable units (you'd have to make sure 
there are no railways leading from enemy cities with Howitzers to your 
cities, otherwise they can do hit-n-run attacks).

Otherwise the late game degenerates into battleship race.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> 
> --- "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > > When a Fighter or Stealth Fighter is stationed in a city that is attacked
> > by air units other than a fighter, the defending units scramble, gaining a
> > defence factor four times their normal value. However, they gain no
> additional
> > > protection from SAM Missile Batteries(because the SAMs don't want to down
> > their own planes).
> > >
> > > This patch implements Civ 2 style fighters.
> > 
> > I think I'm for this. Otherwise fighters are useless.
> 
> It's not a question of usefulness. One of the stated goals of Freeciv is 100%
> Civ 2 compliance. This takes us most of the way.
>  
> > The question is, does this make SAM useless? Ok, SAM doesn't have shield
> > upkeep, but fighters are more flexible, can defend city, and cost less.
> > 
> > Fighter: Build cost 60, att 4, def 3, move 10, vision 2, upkeep 1 shield,
> > defensive value vs bombers is 12. (Interestingly, fighters do get city
> > wall bonus when defending against land attackers.)
> 
> Bizarre, but what do you think of the incredibly stupid decision to let Aegis
> have benefit of SAM and mountains? 288 defence. This would be useful for 
> wonder
> cities/capital.
> 
> > SAM: Build cost 100, upkeep 2 gold, defensive value against bombers is x2
> > (that is, 12 for mech inf)
> 
> I'll make the calculations far harder for you. My upcoming helicopter patch
> will make helis penalised when attacked by fighters. We will finally be Civ 2
> compliant(according to the manual I have open).
> 
> Consider: city has four mech inf, we build SAM, we can stand off 4 stealth
> bombers.
> 
> City has one defender: we build SAM, takes longer, cost more. A fighter is a
> better deal in that instance.
> 
> Number of land defenders(if their def is 6) > 2 we build SAM, else fighter. A
> fighter has some other advantages. He can go out and destroy stacks of stealth
> bombers/air units. When Greg's patch gets into CVS, the AI will be better off
> building fighters.
> 
> If we have Aegis unit defending in a city, ALWAYS build SAM.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> 
>