[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12484) Combining the defense buildings

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

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12484 >

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Benoit Hudson wrote:

> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12484 >
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:18:21AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> >
> The entire concept of shore and aerial bombardment bugs me, well beyond
> the minor usefulness of coastal defense and SAM sites.  I hate how
> well-fortified bronze-age defenders can sink a warship presumably
> lobbing large shells from miles off-shore -- or shoot down a stealth
> fighter!  CtP had a system I preferred, where bombardment meant you did
> some damage to the other at no risk to yourself.  Colonization had a
> nice system whereby coastal defenses would automatically shoot at enemy
> ships sailing nearby; CtP had the same for SAM sites shooting at planes.
>
> If we have a concept of bombardment, we could say:
> - city walls stay as-is (expensive, not impregnable)
> - coastal defense disappears; cannon automatically bombards any number
>   of enemy ships if the cannon is stationed in a city
> - SAM site disappears; new unit mobile SAM site automatically bombards
>   any number of enemy planes if the SAM is stationed in a city
> - SDI stays as-is (although actually I hate its 100% hit rate)

I think turning the defenses into units, while interesting, adds more
micromanagement. For this to work units would have to active defend.
This could be doable for the air defenses (most systems are mobile to
begin with). But for the land and sea defenses I think it is a bit
awkward.

Yes, the ABM defenses (SDI) should not have 100% hit rate, not without a
small wonder or something at least.

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