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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

True. But then what is the point of upgrading to stealth bombers? A stealth
bomber must have more attackpower than a bomber. Think of it in terms of AA/SAM
fire. The stealth bomber can take the time to pick out the exact
target(Canadian Soldiers), drop the bomb exactly on target and go home to
explain how it was all a mistake. Now take the normal bomber. They will be
fired at, won't have the time to line up the target, and will almost certainly
not be able to drop on target. The Canadians live to fight another day.

> (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.

All new fighters are stealth apparently, in that they have radar absorbing
coverings etc. JSF, the Eurofighter etc etc.

> > > > 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.


I fully agree. Greg is right in giving them a move of 4.

> > 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.

Yes, yes. I will implement both TORPEDO and SHIPBUSTER later.
 
> > > > 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.

No no. My math "tricks" show that musketeers are far better units in every way
to the pre-gunpowerder era. I was saying the Gunpowerder era is an excellent
example of the sorts of changes Freeciv should show.

> > > > 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.

Good point.

> > >  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%.

Any positive number means that the unit is better on a shield per shield basis
than the previous unit.

> > >  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.

I agree. So you want to introduce Jet Engines/Propeller etc?
 
> > >  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
> 
> 

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