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

[Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 08:32:49PM -0400, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > scripsit Brandon Craig Rhodes:
> >
> > > *why* do units in cities and forts have to be taken out one at a
> > > time, while units sharing the same square otherwise all
> > > mysteriously and tragically disappear when the first one is taken
> > > down?
> > 
> > Because that's how it was done in Civ 1 ... If you couldn't attack
> > with more than one unit, you couldn't have more than one unit defend
> > or attacking would be impossible.
> 
> The one-against-one model is quite acceptable, and was not my worry;
> since Civ games are designed for expansion and empire building, it
> makes sense for combat to be simple and slow so that people are
> encouraged to concentrate on (what else?) building a civilization
> rather than massing huge armies.
> 
> > Having all but one unit untouched by the combat in cities and forts
> > was a kluge to make up for the fact that only one unit's strength
> > was included in the combat.
> 
> To me the situation when the units are `outdoors' seems to be the far
> greater kludge.  That two units fighting each risk death makes sense;
> but why should several other units fall over dead who contributed
> neither attack nor defense strength in the defense of their square?
> That is what to me seems inexplicable.
> 
> Why not have the one-on-one rule work in the open fields as well as in
> cities?  The simple city combat algorithm, that deletes a single unit
> when it loses, could so easily have been applied to field combat as
> well.  Instead, someone wrote a more complicated version that iterates
> across a bunch of units not even involved in the combat and destroys
> them as well.
> 
> The only explanation I can think of is that the Civ map shows only one
> enemy unit in a square, even if several are present; in which case the
> rule that the whole stack dies with its first defender makes sense if
> the original game designers did not want you surprised to find other
> units hidden under the one you had just so carefully defeated.  So to
> prevent nasty surprises, they guaranteed that the square will be wiped
> clean if you defeat the one enemy you can see.
> 
> But this seems to me simply indefensible.  The game has no problem
> showing multiple units of yours - it just puts a `+' in the corner and
> shows the stack if you click on them.  Why should it not show enemy
> stacks as well?  What about a phalanx lets it hide two units of enemy
> warriors on the exact same spot?  In what period of history were
> components of an army able to make themselves invisible?
> 
> Obviously I am ranting.  Suffice it to say I would keep only the rule
> that all transported units go down with their ship, and also that
> nukes affect all units in a square simultaneously; otherwise combat
> should be strictly pair-wise and enemy stacks should be visible for
> what they are.

there was a killstack patch that gives this option. (only kill one unit
in a stack at a time) I took a look at it, but I did not like the way 
it was done. (too much cruft) I did not have time to boil it down to 
essentials at the time. Maybe I'll get to it some other time. It's a 
good idea though.

-mike