Re: naval attacks on undefended cities

> * Christian Knoke <puevfx-2Y8bYR+q5iFmDO+cP5azjD-Sn5dYDs+udD6nGSXaiLjeg@public.gmane.org> [2005-11-08 18:36:37 +0100]:
>
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:17:02AM -0500, Sam Steingold wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
> This will make it far too easy to conquer a weaker nation.

Vae victis!

> Rather we can remove the population decrease in case of a successful
> attack.  Or reduce the chance that this will happen.

I don't think that pre-destroyer ships have much of a chance against a
settler in a city anyway.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
http://truepeace.org http://www.palestinefacts.org/ http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ http://pmw.org.il/ http://www.dhimmi.com/
There are many reasons not to use Linux - but no good ones.