[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Artillery and sea units (PR#1476)

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Note most of these sorts of changes can be done via the ruleset. I
routinely disagree with both the Freeciv and PayCiv tech-tree and 
unit abilities and have my own personal flavours. This is both for
aesthetics, and to balance game play.

There are endles rationales for *THE* ruleset though and it may be 
rather tricky to get sufficient agreement of everyone's pet peeve or 
to do the playtesting for balance.

But it might be nice to have a few more shipped examples, one of
which tries to be more historically accurate. Emulation of the PayCiv
games, and Freeciv playability (for the metaserver ICS wars) are also
valid reasons for ruleset flavours (i.e. will have their adherents).

At 03:33 PM 02/05/20 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
>    I disagree. The naval units cannot be built before the development of
cannon,
>    which is admittedly not quite the same as what the typical ship in
real life
>    will be using. 
>
>That's the point.  These ships would not have made sense with the sort
>of cannon that were used in wooden ships.  They became possible
>because of more modern guns.

I suspect the modern guns were the effect rather than the cause. Steel 
which you address below plus steam power meant that sailing rigging was
not required and the hull could be *armoured*. The guns then came along
to pierce the armour and do explosive rather than shrapnel type damage.
Steel also is a prereq for steam powered ships, as fire in a wooden ship
was always its biggest threat.

>    Making machine tools a pre-req will force players to still use
>    Frigates/Ironclads for an absurdly long period of time. It also stuffs
up the
>    tech tree progression.
>
>Perhaps machine tools should come earlier, then.
>
>What exactly is "machine tools" supposed to refer to?  The help
>browser does not give that kind of information about technology--I
>think it should.

I believe it refers to the transition from hand operated tools wielded by
craftsmen to steam or water powered tools and an increase in scale. But also 
to techniques like the use of patterns and worm gears to do consistently fine 
reproducible machine work. Precision tooling is probably the key concept if
you need to fix on a single Freeciv concept.

Rifling of barrels in hand-guns that was perfected during the American
Civil War was probably an early precursor of the sorts of changes that
moved cannon from cast iron moulds to machined artillery, and bullets
from balls to aerodynamic shells.

>I see that Destroyer does not require Steel, which seems wrong because
>in fact destroyers were first made out of steel.

Steam Power, Steel and Machine Tools are all reasonable pre-reqs, no?

Electricity, IMHO, is more of a prereq for subs :-).

[...]
>It is hopeless to model naval tactics in Freeciv, so I have the
>following suggestions:
>
>* Battleships should cost 3 times as much as now, and have a doubled
>defense and attack strength against any surface combatant.
>This is because their guns have greater range; usually they can
>hit the lesser combatants when they are too far away to fire back.

There is a power balance here that might become tricky. If they are
untouchable except by another battleship or later air power, this 
would seriously impact playability.

Freeciv doesn't have "armies" or "fleets" of stackable units, but
that is the historical counter to a battleship if you don't have
another of equal might. Swarming a battleship with cruisers or
torpedo wielding destroyers or smaller fast boats meant that some
survived long enough to penetrate the gunnery zone. And speed, 
darkness, weather or "smoke" fog were techniques to enhance the
pure gunnery odds. 

I might give them an attack boost, but not necessarily that much of
a defense. They should be able to obliterate a small number of 
attackers on attack, and usually withstand one or two attacks by
the next biggest ship, but basically go down under a series of 
attackers, especially if the attackers have surprise (maybe a
coastal vs open sea defense modifier).

>* In the same spirit, cruisers should cost 1.5 as much as now, and
>have doubled defense and attack strength against any surface combatant
>except a battleship, and destroyers should have doubled defense and
>attack strength against any surface combatant except a battleship or a
>cruiser.

I think I agree here that cruisers are too light compared to destroyers 
and battleships, 4-8-12 rather than 4-6-12 is my usual fix with the cost
60-90-120, or 60-100-160. I usually make carriers higher cost than 
battleships.

>* Destroyer units should have doubled (or more) defense and attack
>strength against subs, and on defense, they should protect any units
>that are in the same square with them.  The destroyer unit should be
>at least as powerful as the sub unit, in combat between them.

Having destroyers stand up to a sub attack sounds interesting, and this
might make them the preferred defender. I like the scissors/paper/rock 
combat strategies that simple attack/defense modifiers really doesn't 
handle well.

Another effect that would be nice is for faster ships to backoff when 
they get to a certain hitpoint level. Thus the smaller ships would 
not necessarily die, but just be crippled by the slower battleship in
the main battle. 

This would give an incentive to build fleets around a battleship, with
the smaller vessels mopping up after the primary engagement. It would
also provide targets other than the battleship to weaken the naval force.

Cheers,
RossW
=====