Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: April 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8455) Bombardment (aka ranged attack)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8455) Bombardment (aka ranged attack)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: use_less@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8455) Bombardment (aka ranged attack)
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 02:31:58 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8455 >

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, James Canete wrote:
> -Should bombard rules (such as attack all, pillage, etc) be decided on a
> per-unit basis or per-ruleset basis?

If you absolutely _need_ these options (please consider this carefully),
then make it unit based.

> -Should there also be a bombard_minrange, so rushing a ranged bombarding
> unit is a good way to attack it?

IMHO, ranged attacks make no sense at all.

> - bombard can be activated by moving towards an enemy unit now, so if
> non-ranged bombardment is desired a ruleset author can set bombard_range
> to 1 and attack to 0.
...
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, James Canete wrote:
> - added unit flags:
> o "BombardKill", which allows a unit to kill other units via
>   bombardment.
> o "BombardPillage", which allows a unit to pillage terrain units with
>   bombardment. (untested)
> o "BombardAntiair", which makes a unit bombard air units instead of
>   ground/sea units.

Please reduce the number of options. Otherwise, proper AI support will be
vastly more difficult, as well will proper testing be. I do not want there
to be a lot of options nobody uses and whose status is "(untested)" for a
very large number of combinations of options, hiding bugs and
complicating the code.

  - Per




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