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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > ;). You seem to remember the Afghanistan story where the Americans
> > "accidentally" shot up the unlucky Canadians. Ah, but accuracy goes to hell
> > when you drop unguided weapons from high altitude.
> 
> Carpet bombing doesn't need to be accurate. Enough bombs are going to hit
> enough targets to obliterate the enemy anyway. As opposed to precision
> bombing, where you waste your bomb if you miss or hit a decoy.
> 
> > In real life Stealth Bombers are an overly expensive unit that only make
> sense if they are armed with nukes. I don't want to model that in the game.
As
> is, Stealth Bombers are pretty weak. They have to hit harder than the unit 
> they replace.
> 
> Well, as I said, they are a first strike weapon meant to take out enemy
> radar and C&C so that other aircraft can follow up with the heavy payload.

Greg is right that Stealth Bombers are meant to represent a more advanced unit.
It's not mean to specifically represent any particular type of bomber.
 
> If we wanted to accurately model such precision bombing, we'd give them
> the ability to sabotage, just like spies. Take out their SAMs with a
> stealth bomber, whack them silly with normal bombers. Take out their
> Coastals, whack them with battleships. Etc. Hmmm... maybe that isn't such
> a bad idea...

Precision targeting is a great idea. Your way is not so hot. I want certain
defences to fight back. For example a SAM site should hit back when attacked by
a stealth bomber. The best way to simulate this would be to make Coastal,SAM
exactly equivalent to units with 0 move. They are also impervious to
land/sea/etc attack unless the unit has PRECISION_TARGET flag.

> > Also, the wonderfully custom built for stealth planes show up beautifully
> if you use look down radar. A satellite/AWACS plane that is overhead can
> target them very easily for any nearby SAM.
> 
> Indeed. "Stealth" is a moving definition, as new countermeasures are
> invented. More important than the new bomber planes' ability to "stealth"
> is probably their ability to strike accurately at targets.
> 
> > I don't know how to show the major advantages of UAV's in Freeciv. Ideas?
> > We can remove the make people unhappy effect. No one cares if you lose a
> cruise missile/UAV.
> 
> I don't think unhappy effect is only created by bodybags. It is also a war
> weariness, men away from their families, insecurity, war economy, etc..
> 
> However, Fighters already cause no unhappiness. I am not exactly sure why.

Uncertainty over. Quote from Civ 2 Manual:

Because of their routine flight training, most air units are always in the
field. But since fighters protect cities from attack, they are immune.

So the civilians are ok with defensive units.

> > Maybe a pop cost of 1 for normal units? So that an UAV doesn't
> > cost you any pop.
> 
> There is no need to do something that stupid. Just reduce its shield cost
> to show that once you remove the pilot and all associated gear, a fighter
> becomes a lot cheaper to build and maintain. And then you can build a lot
> more of them.

Good idea. But I do want to introduce double population. That way you can
actually lose population when a unit dies, accurately simulating the carnage of
war.
 
> Yours
> Per
> 
> "If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every
> Post-War American president would have to be hanged."
>  - Noam Chomsky
> 
> 

Aloha,
RK.

An ancient proverb summed it up: when a wizard is tired of looking for broken
glass in his dinner, it ran, he is tired of life. -Terry Pratchett, "The Light 
Fantastic"

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