Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7080) No_Land_Attack - For more units
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7080) No_Land_Attack - For more units

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7080) No_Land_Attack - For more units
From: "Arnstein Lindgard" <a-l@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:39:04 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7080 >

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:01:24 -0800 ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> after playing another game of freeciv i think we should try to add the
> "No_Land_Attack" flag to some additional units like
> triremes/caravels/fregattes/iron clads/carrier.

I mainly thought about realism and looked at Civ3 bombardment, but I
think your idea is simpler and more suitable for Freeciv. It's also
very realistic: If you google for "land attack destroyer" and look at
the first pages that pop up, it's clear that this is a very modern
concept. Traditionally you can't effectively use naval artillery from
anything less than a battlecruiser.

So "Cruisers" and higher capital warships could retain the
bombardment ability. Otherwise warships should be used to sink
transporters and protect your caravans...

There's a risk we will just postpone the unlimited warfare style
until Cruisers, just like no/fulltradesize currently postpones the
Frigate wars with a few hundred years. But with Steel the time window
should be big enough to build those coastal fortresses. And again, I
assume this will be combined with a way to limit the number of cities.

The concept of bombarding off just a few hitpoints is even more
realistic. But then again we already allow infantry to wipe out
infantry. Having them retreat and recover would have been realistic.
I would definately agree we don't need full realism.


Arnstein




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