[Freeciv] Re: Dirigible

[saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eddie Anderson)]

nicholas.g.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>nick
>>>What do people think of the Dirigible as a military unit?
>>
>>Eddie
>    >Don't know.  What would its characteristics be (in FreeCiv
>>terms -
>
>    cost,40
>    movement, 4
>    vision, 2
>    attack, 4
>    defense, 2
>    firepower, 1
>    hitpoints, 20
>
>    not restricted by terrain
>    does not need to land in city
>    may carry 2 units
>
>    >What tech prereq would be needed?
>
>    Theory of Gravity

    Thanks for the specifics.  Unfortunately, I don't know a lot
about the history of dirigibles.  Consequently, I probably can't
contribute much to the discussion of the merits of your proposal.
So I'll leave that to others.

    But thinking about a dirigible Freeciv unit has reminded me of
another issue.  Though I think I should start a new thread for that.

>    >  If the prereq tech is new one, then where
>>would it fit in the tech tree?
>
>    Is there a diagram of the tech tree anywhere? The help
>    file does list what new technologies any one technology
>    allows, but does not list what technologies any one
>    technology is directly dependant upon.

    A *FreeCiv* specific diagram?  Not that I know of.

    FWIW, I still use my old Civ2 poster as a reference.  It
contains the Civ2 tech tree, a table of terrain characteristics
(including the special terrains), and a table of military unit
specifications.  The info on the Civ2 poster does not correspond
*perfectly* to all the variants of FreeCiv; but it is close enough
to be useful (especially the tech tree part).

    I agree about the in-game help.  The hyperlinks work great but,
AFAIK they only link "upwards" (i.e. to higher level techs), not
"downwards" (to prereq techs).

    Does anyone here know if the existing FreeCiv code would support
"downward" links in the help?  IOW, would simply changing some
*.rules files make "downwards" links available?

>    Also, this thread appears to be discussed by Jim C. Nasby
>    and Thomas Strub, but I am missing a section. Sorry if
>    if I'm not in synch.

    I've seen (at least some of) their posts (and yours).  And I
haven't noticed any gaps in the thread so far.  No worries here.
:-)

Eddie