[Freeciv-Dev] Re: RFC: Artillery Patch

[Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

        Somebody wrote something at some point, and I'm getting lost in a
haze of attributions.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:01:43AM -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> --- Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:22:16PM -0400, Kenn Munro wrote:
> > > I don't like the idea of land units being able to attack sea units.  The
> > > Earth's circumference is 40,000 km.  With the default xsize/ysize
> > > (80/50), that's 500x400 km per square.  It isn't very realistic that a
> > > catapult, or even longer range artillery, could attack a ship at a
> > > random location in that square.

        People are using that word "realistic" again.  To quote _Princess
Bride_, "I do not think it means what you think it means".

> Also, you totally miss the scale of Freeciv. It isn't just one ship, although
> that is how it looks. The legion, for example represents a legion unit, being
> exactly that many men. That one ship represents a fleet, an infantry unit a
> divison etc.

        Neither PayCiv nor Freeciv encode a scale.  I'm severely tempted to
make a "Turning Point Stalingrad" scenario, where tens of meters are the
tile scale.
        Tell me then what your "cities" represent?  Explain to me why units
can only attack the unit next to them?

        Abstract, abstract, abstract.

> > > On small-scale maps, it might be more realistic.  But even if the
> > > artillery could reach, the ship would likely be able to retreat without
> > > sustaining major damage.  This may be where a bombard effect would come
> > > into play.. the artillery could inflict a certain amount of damage on
> > > the ship, without necessarily destroying it.
> 
> Bombard effects. No. Never. I've already said I won't be writing a bombardment
> patch. Let Freecivers eat cake.
> 
> And what is it with retreating.

        I hear a bell tolling.  It says to me "SMAC Compability".  Despite
how you might dislike them, they will come someday.

> The exact same thing happens when two armies
> fight. There has never been a war where every single member of the enemy force
> has been killed. 
> 
> And yet I keep hearing dumb arguments, Artillery can't kill every man.
> Ridiculous. No army in the world has ever killed every man in the opposing
> army.
> Yet land units are not restricted to only dealing out 80% damage etc.

        You don't have to kill every man to make the fighting force
completely ineffective.  Washington Crossing the Delaware is one example.
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

'Finally, the Navy stated that [...] "However, use of the area as a live
fire range has the beneficial effect of reducing the negative impacts of
human intrusion."' - Center For Biological Diversity v Pirie and Rumsfeld