Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:17:06 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> Makes sense. Now how about bomber attacking a square with infantry and a
> fighter.

A very good example. I think perhaps we should say instead that if you are
unable to attack a unit that exists in your own layer in target tile, then
you may not attack that tile at all. This way you cannot attack other
layers if you do not have control of your own layer.

In this case, you need air superiority over the tile to bomb ground
targets. A not unreasonable restriction, IMHO.

> Shouldn't fighter engage the bomber?

Using the Bomber's attack rating? That would be silly. Using its defense
rating? Then you'd have to come up with a new rule for this

A possibility: If there are no units on target tile in your own layer, or
you cannot attack any of those units AND none of them can attack you, then
you attack other layers. If there are units in your own layer that you
cannot attack but that can attack you, there is combat but the
attack/defender roles are swapped.

But this makes it complicated. Too complicated, IMHO.

> That's what happens in a city (fighters "scramble").

That is a special rule.

  - Per

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