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

["Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa" <vasc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Egor Vyscrebentsov wrote:

> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8455 >
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004
> "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Looking through the ruleset, I saw one obvious thing that is missing from
> > the patch: The ability to differenciate between shore bombardment and
> > sea-vs-sea combat. An ironclad should bombard units on land, but should
> > still fight normally with other sea units.
> >
> > The same should be the case for air units, I think.
>
> In Civ3 player of naval unit can choose between normal attack and bombardment
> (agianst another naval unit).
>
> Thanks, evyscr.
>
> PS I know, that "civ3 suck", but...
>
> OFF I hope to end pre-preliminary civ3 ruleset soon :)

Well, in *that* it does not suck. The AI is pretty strong too, even if the
game gets frustrating because it is so damn hard. The special resources are
probably the best idea of the bunch. Not that this is new. I think
Imperialism had something like this a long time ago.

But in most regards vs SMAC, it was a step backwards. And do not tell me
about culture, or corruption. Those were the most broken additions they
made. That plus the insane movement restriction across enemy territory. I
think even Guderian himself couldn't ever have invaded France or Poland
in the timescales he did using such a stupid set of rules.

They broke the game's balance, that is what they did. Perhaps they fixed
it again later on in their multitude of re-releases of the game engine,
which you had to pay for again. But I don't care. Galactic Civilizations
kicks its butt any day. Heck, MoM kicks its butt any day, old as it is.

---
Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa @ Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa