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

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

[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 proposal redux
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:12:05 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> very nice summary.


> > New attack rules:
> >- You cannot attack a tile if your own layer contains one or more units
> > but you cannot attack any of them. (Layer superiority rule.)
> I don't understand this rule.

You can only attack other layers on the target tile if your own layer is
cleared of enemy units.

This solves the 'attacking using a bomber against a tile containing a
fighter and ground unit' problem. You shouldn't just be able to fly around
the fighter and bomb the ground unit, but doing strange things to allow
the fighter to fight the bomber is also bad, since the rules would then
have to be rather complex.

> > Misc:
> >- Cargo transported by a transporter which resides in a different layer
> > are unaffected if their transporter is killed, so they should be
> > un-sentried. We assume that they scramble into their own layer when
> > attacked. At the moment, this only applies to carriers and air units.
> somewhat confusing. This needs to be fleshed out a bit more.

This is mostly a 'this follows from the above' ruling, apart form the
un-sentry part. Since it is possible for units to be transported by a unit
in another layer, it is also possible that transporting units to lose
their transport but not die themselves. In this case, these units should
be un-sentried.

Note that this already possible: Currently, if you for some reason lose
your carrier (for example if you lose the city owning the carrier), then
the aircraft on it remain behind sentried midair. Chris reported this as a
bug some time ago.

> > (If we want to extend this at a later date to cover
> > which-unit-can-attack-which-unit, then these points apply:
> >- By default, units can attack their own layer and only that.
> this is very problematic. consider this makes submarines (by your defn)
> AEGIS cruisers and bombers (among others?) pointless or at the very least
> strangely named units.

Well, you should note the 'by default'. Of course submarines and bombers
should be given additional capabilities, allowing them to attack other
layers. (Can AEGIS cruisers attack aircraft currently? I didn't think so.)

  - Per

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