Re: RFE: terrain improvement: canal

--- Sam Steingold <sds-mXXj517/[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> 
> The following message is a courtesy copy of an
> article
> that has been posted to gmane.games.freeciv.general
> as well.
> 
> > * Fishpark
> <svfucnex77-/[email protected]>
> [2006-01-19 08:11:56 +0000]:
> >
> > Perhaps only the extending of rivers should be
> allowed? This would not
> > really be a 'canal' feature, though.
> 
> yes, _canals_ should be adjacent to rivers or oceans
> 
> >> a naval attack against an undefended city should
> >> work like this:
> >> 
> >> 1. <virtually> create a settler out of the city;
> >> population is reduced by 1
> >> 
> >> 2. the virtual settler fights the ship
> >>    - if the ship wins, the virtual settler
> >> disappears (together with the
> >>      buildings lost in the attack &c), population
> >> remains reduced
> >>    - if the ship loses to the virtual settler,
> the
> >> virtual settler also
> >>      disappears but the city population is
> restored
> >> to its original
> >>      value (i.e., increased by 1); optionally:
> >> reduce food reserves
> >>      (granary) in proportion to the damage
> sustained
> >> by the virtual settler
> >> 
> >
> > Hmmm this is similar to Colonization's 'colonists
> take up arms and
> > defend the colony!' feature.
> 
> this is intended to work for both naval units and
> bombers and this is
> NOT colonists taking up arms but a way to simulate
> carpet
> bombing/battleship shelling a defenseless city into
> oblivion.
> 

Ah I remember now, you wanted to wipe an enemy city
off the map but because it was on a 1x1 island you
couldn't get at it without researching Amphibious
Warfare first.

I think that not being able to enter a city with a
ship or bomber is one of the better elements in
(Free)civ, it's one of those things that make it so
playable.

I understand that carpetbombing really does work
(numerous examples to be visited around the world) but
it'd have to take more than just 5 hits for a size-5
city. That would be way to easy. An idea would be to
only allow one strike per city per turn?

> 
> > I will have read the arguments again (I seem to
> remember bits and
> > pieces) but why did you propose this for naval
> units only?
> 
> because land units conquer cities outright.
> 
> -- 
> Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running
> w2k
> http://www.camera.org http://ffii.org
> http://www.dhimmi.com
> http://www.honestreporting.com
> http://www.savegushkatif.org
> Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
> 
> 



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com