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: "Davide Pagnin" <pagnin@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:29:23 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 22:18, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 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.

Well, let me say that your proposal IS different from Raimar's one.
(In the sense that Raimar's one added a whole new concept that is
orthogonal to your proposal but that in the game-play realizes many

So, considering to approve Per proposal or Raimar+Per proposal, is like
voting for 2 different things.

But, this is not important at all, we should focus on concepts.

> > 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.

huh? What are you meaning? Civ[12] let you use bombers as defender of
important position, provided that you put under them a good land or sea
defender, just in case of a fighter attack. This can be bad or stupid,
but IT IS normal civ[12] playing, then compatibility means allowing this

> 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)

In another mail I've explained that, all we need are 2 simple additional
rules, that won't screw anything...

> .
> 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 suspect that you haven't played civ[12] a lot...

> > 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
> problem.

My position is this one:
1. "Allowing generalised ruled"
2. "Preserve compatibility"
3. "Teach AI to cope with every possible configuration"

If you introduce layered stack and compatibility special rules AND AI
will do well with layered stack and less well with compatibility rules
enable, I'm fine. (Perhaps you're not...)

> > 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.

I disagree. You look at the point by one side...
1. AI have to choose wisely how to move its units, then it has to manage
defenders not only attackers, and then it can't know precisely how it
will be attacked
2. AI have to choose wisely what to build, for defense or attack, then
you have to consider all aspects of units not only one

So, if your objection stands, it stands for both attack and defend

I say, instead, that you can choose heuristic:

1. Consider the units in its layer (by evaluting its layers stats in a
way you consider appropriate)

2. Add, bonus/malus for other layers stats

So, a bomber will be VERY BAD (from its layer statitics) but then,
adding the LAND+SEA ATTACK STATS, it will become GOOD.

Another possible choice, is to consider max for every stats. (this will
overestimate fighters, perhaps, but you can correct this some way)

> 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
> effect.

This may be a good point, but then I hardly imagine why there are so
many configurable options in Freeciv that nobody change or uses...

> > 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.)

But, in the event that someone love it? 
If a good reason not to implement !killstack is that you dislike it...

> > 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]