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

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

At 08:32 PM 02/05/24 -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.
[...]
>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.

While I am not sure I agree with the practice, there are probably a
number of rationalizations for it if one wants to look for them.

Units can fight effectively only if they can deploy in appropriate
formation, and only if they are "ready" at the time of battle. With
massed forces, some are "on guard" and ready to fight, while others
are sleeping or on reccy duty and thus mere cannon fodder rather than
any effective opposition.

At Pearl harbour, the Americans forgot to even put a unit "on guard"
and thus suffered the Civ consequences in practice.

With "fleets", "armies" or "stacks" one can put more than one unit 
"on guard". Units not part of the collective could be left to the 
current Civ rules. Resting or healing units should be in this state
maybe.

>The only explanation I can think of 
[...]
>Obviously I am ranting. 
[...]
As long as one recognizes it, such things are not unreasonable ... :-)

>-- 
>Brandon Craig Rhodes   brandon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx   http://rhodesmill.org/brandon

Cheers,
RossW
=====