[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Non-Mobile Units and Coastal Bombardement

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> The problem with this is that sea tiles extend far more than "3-miles" from
>> the coast. Thus unless the unit comes in to attack, the shore batteries can
>> never reach it. In an attack, the possibility of destruction currently
>> exists. Thus adding a shore defender attack option and taking away the
>> combat damage from an unsuccessful sea attack is both redundant and
>> backwards.
>
>Unfortunately this essentially means that the shape of the sea can never
>have strategic significance aside from mere distance to get from here to
>there.  So say we have a narrow pass which could in the real world be
>defended by cannons. 

No sea straits ever really was so defended in any historical context.
Rivers were defended by cannon, but never straits. only by mid-twentieth 
century were guns actually powerful enough to reach over the horizon.

And you should remember as well, that a coastal tile has its own strip 
of sea running say 3-miles. So, to hit the edge of a sea tile, you are 
already firing well beyond any realistic limits for cannon. Only when 
ships enter coastal waters to attack are they in range of shore 
batteries. The fixed units just have to wait while the mobile ones 
choose the time and place. For this reason I have no qualms about 
rethinking attack vs defense factors in battle. Fortified Cannon should 
be able to use their higher attack rather than puny defense. This makes 
a more realistic scenario in many other ways as well.

> What could this turn into in civ?  Well either the
>land on either side touches so land units can cross which completely
>negates one of the (perhaps less convenient) strategic aspects of water,
>or there is a one tile gap which is the natural representation of this
>situation in my view.  I think it is a horrible shame to dismiss the
>strategic value of the shape of oceans due solely to the granularity of
>the map.

That is what ships are for ... to block off such strategic sea routes.
Static land units just don't cut it for this :-).

>Special code to find straits is inelegant and silly -- if there's space
>not to go near shore then don't; if there isn't then this will be a
>straight so letting certain land units attack always or at straits changes

We need something like river estuaries where ships can sail in and 
land units can attack. If you look at a river estuary with several 
adjacent sea tiles, it is really a collection of offshore islands.
But since both types of units can enter, both can attack freely. I've
played this and it works quite well. This too is probably a better 
way to represent straits, i.e. as an estuary through an otherwise 
land tile. 

I agree the other is a pretty unworkable solution from a coding 
standpoint and relies on some specious arguments about how close the 
adjacent land is to justify the realism aspect - but there is at 
least a plausible rationale.

>nothing except for catching the careless who sail their ships near shore
>when they don't have to.

You overlook the possibility of reefs and channels which may mean the 
only way for a ship to cross the sea tile is a route along the coast. 
It is not just carelessness, but one has to dream up such additional 
non-visible effects to make sea batteries plausible. 

>Also there is no reason that a scenario map couldn't have tiles at a 3
>mile scale.  I think it makes sense for the code for this to exist, but
>perhaps simply not for any such units to exist in the standard ruleset.

This is true. An option that allowed such things when playing such small
scale scenarios is not a bad idea and rationalization for what in the 
normal game map is quite inaccurate and hence should be disallowed.

Cheers,
RossW
=====