Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2293) Paratroopers jumping into an empty city
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2293) Paratroopers jumping into an empty city

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2293) Paratroopers jumping into an empty city
From: "Jason Short via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:29:39 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Davide Pagnin via RT wrote:

>>Let me know your thoughts, this fix (partial or complete) need to find
>>its way before 1.14.0.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the fix used for S1_14 
need not be the same fix used in HEAD.  In fact, it probably should not 
be.  For S1_14, just use the safest fix.  For HEAD, we much choose the 
proper fix.

IMO players who have no contact should not be 'at war', but should be in 
a neutral state.  However, paradropping onto somebody (city or unit) is 
certainly a hostile action, and could quite reasonably lead to immediate 
war.

I don't think the paratrooper should just die, though.  In the case of 
an unoccupied city, it would be possible for the unit to capture the 
city - but when dealing with units this won't work.  Placing them on a 
nearby unoccupied square is possible, but seems like a lot of work 
(there's no guarantee this square is anywhere close).  I thought of 
having the paratrooper just engage the existing unit (at a huge penalty) 
to fight for the right to the tile, but this won't work since many 
defenders might have to die before the tile becomes available.

Therefore I do not know what the best solution is.  But I think that 
whatever we choose, it will be about equally realistic.

jason




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]