Re: naval attacks on undefended cities

> * Jonadab the Unsightly One <wbanqno-IrLFYxOktEFfGaWA9+OTKt-Sn5dYDs+udD6nGSXaiLjeg@public.gmane.org> [2005-11-08 10:36:12 -0500]:
>
> Per Inge Mathisen <per-0/[email protected]> writes:
>
>> That is why 1x1 islands are normally not generated, that is unless
>> you turn on the tinyisles option. However, someone insisted on
>> adding this as an option. In my opinion this was a bad idea.
>
> Such cites are *far* less likely to have any strategic importance
> than, say, a city on a one-tile-wide isthmus.

this is all totally beyond the point, which is -- a ship should be able
to shell an undefended city, reducing its population and/or destroying
buildings.
I fail to see why a city with no units should be at an advantage
compared with a city with units.

Algorithmically, we can treat an undefended city of size N as if it were
a city of size N-1 defended by a single settler unit. I think this is a
reasonable approach.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://www.iris.org.il http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
http://www.savegushkatif.org http://www.mideasttruth.com/ http://www.camera.org
Are you smart enough to use Lisp?