Reviewing old posts I noticed the effort to be "Historical accurate" from many people, I smile...
Foremost is the railroads. But No Trains ? I dream of a train with many wagons carrying lots of units, moving farther than caravans/freights, and what about railroad stations that would give extra production or/and trade points ?
You get the idea... It must be a long shot, but I can dream, can't I ?
Then the bombers : only one shot to an enemy city ? Bombers unleash many many bombs in one shot.
And more examples come to mind. But the railroad/trains prospect is to MHO is the most flagrant.
Historical Accurate ?
Re: Historical Accurate ?
For trains: in theory, I think one could already define "locomotive" and "waggon" units. Several waggons would be transported by one locomotive, and each could transport one or more unit(s). You could have different waggons types, eg for infantry and tanks, and different engines too. If I'm not mistaken, a recent (read: not yet released) feature of the engine is to make units loose their movement points when unloaded from a transport.
Bombers in 3.0 (maybe 2.6 too, not sure) will hit all units on the tile, but won't kill any of them. Does it look better ?
So... is this about capabilities of the engine or about the default ruleset ? Would a very realistic ruleset be more entertaining ? I don't think so, but you can try and write one
Louis
Bombers in 3.0 (maybe 2.6 too, not sure) will hit all units on the tile, but won't kill any of them. Does it look better ?
So... is this about capabilities of the engine or about the default ruleset ? Would a very realistic ruleset be more entertaining ? I don't think so, but you can try and write one
Louis
Re: Historical Accurate ?
There you go !
that's along the lines I suggested.
I mean : Our gurus are more hell bent into LT and Web-playing and such, so I'm hoping some one who would pick this thread.
You know, I met a system engineer a little while ago and he said something I heard a long time ago :
"There is two ways to develop a software : Vertical and Horizontal. Vertical is when you develop new things into the old version. Horizontal develop is when take care of old glitches, like absent icons and such"
I'm sure you all know this story... But it doesn't apply to Freeciv ?
Look at other games, do they have these kind of gaps ? No, they have smooth GUIs and play information.
This is no criticism, but an incentive to improve Freeciv.
that's along the lines I suggested.
I mean : Our gurus are more hell bent into LT and Web-playing and such, so I'm hoping some one who would pick this thread.
You know, I met a system engineer a little while ago and he said something I heard a long time ago :
"There is two ways to develop a software : Vertical and Horizontal. Vertical is when you develop new things into the old version. Horizontal develop is when take care of old glitches, like absent icons and such"
I'm sure you all know this story... But it doesn't apply to Freeciv ?
Look at other games, do they have these kind of gaps ? No, they have smooth GUIs and play information.
This is no criticism, but an incentive to improve Freeciv.
- GriffonSpade
- Elite
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: Historical Accurate ?
The bomber stuff can be approximated by having them use Bombard attack in ruleset, which hits every unit on the tile. Destroying buildings and such may also be possible in the future with action enablers. The future action enablers will also improve the ability to use bombard units, since it will no longer necessarily be forced to be their 'only' mode of attack.
The trains and railroad thing is known, but the main issue is that it would be extremely difficult to get the AI to use ferrying on terrain units can already move on.
The trains and railroad thing is known, but the main issue is that it would be extremely difficult to get the AI to use ferrying on terrain units can already move on.
Re: Historical Accurate ?
I see...
Thank you GriffonSpade for your input, looking forward for those things getting worked on.
Sorry about the difficulty with the railroads... well it was a nice thought.
Thank you GriffonSpade for your input, looking forward for those things getting worked on.
Sorry about the difficulty with the railroads... well it was a nice thought.