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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First of all, I think that adding defence and attack per shield ratios 
> together is misleading.  You use bomber to attack and only to attack, do 
> you really care about its precise defence value?
> 
> Also, why do you think that the attack per shield ratio has to increase?  
> Modern warfare certainly isn't becoming cheaper...

Firepower per unit certainly has. A single aircraft carrier of today could sink
any fleet of any time period before 1940. The revolution is incredible. Compare
the firepower of one bomber armed with a nuke to any no of conventional armed
bombers to see what I mean.

One bomber armed with chemical/biological/nuke/Fuel Air Explosive would wipe
out any ancient army. That is a huge firepower increase.

> Now, specific units:
> 
> I think the planes are quite powerful against land units as they 
> are.  A Bomber has very good chances of killing a mech inf in a 
> SAM-defended city, not terribly realistic IMO.  But stealth bomber is too 
> poor when compared to just bomber.  Increaing firepower 2->3 is the same 
> as increasing attack 14->21, too much.  I think we should make them 
> cheaper instead.  160->140 they'd become same value for money as bombers 
> (wrt attack) plus a bonus of better defence and longer range.

I'm against making stealth cheaper. As you go up the tech tree, cost always
increases. To compensate, the unit becomes a very hard hitting attacker.
And after all, the stealth bomber is a very very expensive unit.

> However planes against sea units are no good.  I think a "ShipBuster" flag 
> for all bombers increasing attack two-fold is going to be just fine.  And 
> AEGIS will still be inpenetrable for air units, which is good.

Can't do Shipbuster yet Greg. I took the last flag. You will have to wait for
bitvectors2 from Per before I can write it.

> Subs are too slow, otherwise 2 subs can easily take out Battleship which 
> is rather fair, taking into account their costs.  So speed 3->4 should do 
> fine.

Yes!

> Their natural enemy is Destroyer which is really pathetic value for money.  
> Firpower 1->2 should make it better, although still poorer fighter than 
> any other war ship.  That will be compensated by the speed though.

Sounds good. After all subs have crap defence.
 
> This is the closest to Scissors, Paper, Rock I can think of right now.
> 
> G.
> 
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> > >             Destroyer:  200 +  200 =  400
> > >               Cruiser:  450 +  450 =  900
> > >         AEGIS Cruiser:  480 +  480 =  960
> > >            Battleship:  600 +  600 = 1200
> > >             Submarine: 1000 +  200 = 1200
> > > 
> > > Battleship and Submarine are equal priced. It may be possible to
> > > change the attack of Submarines from 10 to 14 and the cost from 60 to
> > > 80.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Basically, an ratio of 1400 would be better. Subs can only attack naval
> units. So make them very powerful against all naval units except their one 
> archenemy, the destroyer.
> 
> 

Aloha,
RK.

A hypothetical paradox: What would happen in a battle between an Enterprise
security team, who always get killed soon after appearing, and a squad of
Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of a planet? -Tom Galloway

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com