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: Tue, 27 May 2003 13:18:59 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Davide Pagnin wrote:
> To be more clear. After reading the Layers Redux from Per, this proposal
> seems quite different from it, at least in some crucial points.
> So I will be very grateful to you, Per, if you make a new resume, that
> includes what seems to be the actual proposal.

As Raimar said, his proposal is an addition to the proposal, not a change
of it.

> On civ1 / civ2 compatibility issues:
> I've seen Per proposing all units in the same layer, this seems not a
> good way to be "civ[12]" compliant.

To clarify, if only the layers redux proposal is implemented then the only
change is that if a tile contains both an air unit and a ground unit, we
can attack the tile (irrespective of the stats of all units involved) -
the air unit loses its ability to block once it stacks with a unit that
can be attacked.

I fail to see how this is not good enough for civ1/2 compatibility.

If Raimar's additional proposal is implemented, I am not entirely sure
what the implications will be for civ1/2 compatibility. I presume that you
will have to choose between allowing ground units to attack air units (all
units in single layer) or using two layers at the cost of having to use
layered killstack. Or adding additional, complicating rules (a bad idea).

I don't quite see how having layered killstack will seriously bother
anyone playing civ1/2 mode, given that it only affects air units stacking
with non-air units.

> I'm still not convinced, anyway, that we have to drop compatibility with
> civ[12], in this respect.

My attitude to all rules changes is that we should in principle, and
strive in practice, to support all rules possibilities 100% in terms of
testing, fixing and AI support. This places some restrictions on what is
humanly possible given limited programmer hours.

However, it may be that everyone else think that total civ1/2
compatibility is more important than having a civ1/2 mode that is totally
supported by the AI and/or that the options used to give this
compatibility does work with values other than those actually used in
civ1/2 mode. In this case, I would strongly suggest that the civstyle
variable is brought back from the hall of shame and we start using it
instead of adding generalised rules to fix every specialised civ1/2

> As far as realism is concerned, I think that a bomber should be allowed
> to attack, and to take its risks in doing so (if there are fighters the
> bomber are more likely to be taken down but they can also succeed in the
> attack)
> For solving this issue, we can consider to add more that 3 layers, so
> that we have, say: high-air, low-air, land, sea, sub-sea
> bomber is high-air with 0/4/2 with 5 land attack and 5 sea attack (and 5
> sub-sea?)
> fighter is low-air with 4/4/2 with 4 land attack, 4 sea attack, 4
> high-air attack, etc.

Yes, this is possible within the suggested rules (redux+Raimar), but I
prefer a simpler solution.

> NOTE: If we introduce different attack power for every layers, we should
> consider to do the same for defense power. (this will make AEGIS not an
> exception but something that has big low-airand high-air defense power)

I was afraid someone might suggest this... For AI, different attack powers
won't be very hard to support, but different defense power will be. The
reason is that we know what we want to attack, but we don't know where
attacks will come from.

But my real reason to be against it is that it is too complicated for no
gain. Instead, the AEGIS ability should one day be generalised as a unit

> As far as realism is concerned, it is not clear at all how, by
> destroying the most powerful defense unit of a region, you will succeed
> in destroying all the others!

Well, then so much for realism. I like killstack, since it adds another
tactical dimension to the game. It also makes games faster. (I didn't
really realize how much I loved killstack before I saw civ3.)

> Imagine that you have 5 mech. inf., fortified on a mountain tile, all
> veterans. If you attack them with a veteran bomber, there are low
> chances that you will succeed, but that event may happen.
> Is is realistic that the other 4 units are destroyed?

Well, the bomb might trigger an avalanche... :-)

  - Per

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