[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Bombers/Fighters no longer obsolete (PR#1628)

[Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> I prefer the +3 firepower. But I wouldn't object to 20 attack strength.

I suppose you mean +1 firepower. Anyway, both that and 20 attack strength
have one obvious flaw: It supposes stealth bombers carry more payload than
other bombers, which is wrong. Ordinary bombers (think B52) carry more
payload. Stealth bombers (B2, F117) are used as a first strike weapon to
take out enemy radars and C&C because they can fly in undetected. They are
much harder to shoot down since they show up on radar so fleetingly that
you cannot lock missiles on them.

(All modern bombers have more or less stealth capabilities using radar
absorbing materials. But I believe what is meant here by "stealth bomber"
are planes especially built to evade detection by radar.)

I am not aware of any existing stealth air superiority fighters. They
don't really make that much sense.

> > > No unit should be invulnerable. There should always be at least one unit
> > that can destroy that unit at a favourable shield ratio. For example, take a
> > > battleship:
> >
> > > There is no unit that can successfully destroy a battleship at a good loss
> > > ratio. Subs should be the unit for the job. They should have an attack
> > rating that is higher, so that they can kill a battleship. Adjust their
> shield
> > cost to 80 to compensate for their power.

The big problem with subs is their abysmal movement, which means they
can't catch up with their prey.

> They shouldn't be equal. I want submarines to have an advantage destroying
> battleships. This addresses the subs never get built problem. And to stop
> subs from destroying every other naval unit, there should be one naval unit
> that can beat subs easily.

Or naval aircraft. Used a lot to combat subs historically.

> > > Next: Sometimes units should be far more powerful than the previous
> > generation of units. Gunpowerder is an excellent example. All units after
> >gunpowder should be more powerful than the earlier units.

They are. Just because you do math tricks with /cost doesn't mean they
aren't better.

> > > Air units need a boost to their move rate. All air units. How much should
> > the boost be? I favour an across the board 200% increase in move rate.

Moving aircraft around is pretty dull and boring. The more movement points
the more dull. So how about this: Once they have done their attack, they
have no moves left. The player may set a goto to any friendly city. On
turn end, all aircraft either rebase (teleport) to such a target city or
automatically rebase to nearest city. Until that happens, the bomber is a
juicy target for enemy fighters unless the bomber is escorted by (stacks
with) a fighter of its own.

> I thought this bug was fixed. Is it still possible in CVS to go from Barb
> Leader to Settler?

The only way to get a Barb Leader is by bribery. Once I have added my new
F_UNBRIBABLE flag, this problem will disappear.

> >        defense_strength:    3 -- >    4   +33%
> >                att/cost:  200 -- >  250   +25%
> >                def/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
> >                all/cost:  400 -- >  450   +12%
>
> Is this right? Surely riflemen are better value than this.

Each additional point in defense value is very important, since it can be
multiplied by so many things.

> >  Horsemen -> Knights
> >              build_cost:   20 -- >   40  +100%
> >         attack_strength:    2 -- >    4  +100%
> >        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
> >                att/cost:  100 -- >  100    +0%
> >                def/cost:   50 -- >   50    +0%
> >                all/cost:  150 -- >  150    +0%
>
> So horsemen and knights are equivalent. This is a very useful tip.

I'll still build Knights over Horsemen any day.

> >  Catapult -> Cannon
> >         attack_strength:    6 -- >    8   +33%
> >                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
> >                att/cost:  150 -- >  400  +166%
> >                def/cost:   25 -- >   50  +100%
> >                all/cost:  175 -- >  450  +157%

Impressive.

> >  Cannon -> Artillery
> >              build_cost:   40 -- >   50   +25%
> >         attack_strength:    8 -- >   10   +25%
> >               firepower:    1 -- >    2  +100%
> >                att/cost:  400 -- >  800  +100%
> >                def/cost:   50 -- >   80   +60%
> >                all/cost:  450 -- >  880   +95%

Also notable.

> >  Artillery -> Howitzer
> >              build_cost:   50 -- >   70   +40%
> >         attack_strength:   10 -- >   12   +20%
> >        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
> >               move_rate:    3 -- >    6  +100%
> >                      hp:   20 -- >   30   +50%
> >                   flags: +IgWall
> >                att/cost:  800 -- > 1028   +28%
> >                def/cost:   80 -- >  171  +113%
> >                all/cost:  880 -- > 1199   +36%
>
> Every upgrade to an artillery unit is worth it.

Absolutely. An addition movement and IgWall more than makes up for the
"lousy" 36%.

> >  Fighter -> Stealth Fighter
> >              build_cost:   60 -- >   80   +33%
> >         attack_strength:    4 -- >    8  +100%
> >        defense_strength:    3 -- >    4   +33%
> >               move_rate:   30 -- >   42   +40%
> >                att/cost:  266 -- >  400   +50%
> >                def/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
> >                all/cost:  466 -- >  600   +28%
>
> Now here is a classic case. The reason that a stealth fighter is worth the
> upgrade over a normal fighter is because its attack power has been upgraded. 
> If
> the defence had been upgraded instead this unit would have been useless.

As I said above, I don't see any reason for having Stealth Fighter as a
unit. The big change came with jet engines, not stealth tech.

> >  Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
> >              build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
> >         attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
> >        defense_strength:    1 -- >    5  +400%
> >               move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
> >                att/cost:  400 -- >  350   -12%
> >                def/cost:   33 -- >  125  +278%
> >                all/cost:  433 -- >  475    +9%

Yup. It isn't very good. F_PARTIAL_INVIS doesn't make much better, either.
If we had a retreat ability, it could have that to indicate its ability to
evade combat/AA. Until then, maybe just up its hp.

Yours
Per

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every
Post-War American president would have to be hanged."
 - Noam Chomsky