Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: November 2000:
[Freeciv] Re: Combat rules

[Freeciv] Re: Combat rules

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv] Re: Combat rules
From: Markus <markus.buechele@xxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:55:44 +0100
Reply-to: markus.buechele@xxxxxx

Am Son, 05 Nov 2000 schrieben Sie:
> Gert Van den Eynde wrote:
> > I have a small (and maybe stupid) question on the freeciv combat rules. As 
> > I can see now, combat is always one-on-one. Is it possible to have "a lot - 
> > on - one" or "a lot - on - a lot" style of combat ? For example, I attack a 
> > city with 4 units and the city defends itself with 2 units, all
> > simultaneously ?
> This would be a nice feature, at least for history buffs.
> Throughout most of history, wars were fought by each side sending a single 
> monolithic army (or at most a very few armies) against each other.  The 
> command and control arrangements for phasing attacks by a myriad 
> independently operating units just was not there.
> And in modern times, combined arms operations are the key to everything, so 
> stack operations would be the best way to implement modern combat as well.
> However, in addition to requiring changes to the code, this might cause 
> playability problems.  Just guessing, but I can't help wonder whether it was 
> omitted from Civ I/II because it would introduce a problem with players 
> quickly building a super-army that could walk all over weaker states with
> impunity.  If it is implemented, there may need to be some constraints on it, 
> and lots of playtesting will be necessary.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
What could be done to improve the AI in this respect is to have it have one
attacking unit in town in auto attack mode. That means that a unit directly
next to the town is being attacked only, isn't it?



P.S.: Dump M$ - take off with Linux!

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