Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3804 (project freeciv):

For unloading, I think it's important to only be able to air-drop units
capable of such activities.  For the case of trying to model a BMD-3 or M551
Sheridan, one would grant UTYF_PARATROOPERS and set paratroopers_range to zero
or a small value (and maybe set paratroopers_mr_sub to something high for the
Sheridan, as it can't fire during landing).  That said, it seems inappropriate
to try to airdrop *any* tank, as most true Main Battle Tanks (land equivalent
of a Battleship: seemed like a good idea, but less useful as time passes)
would be too heavy to airdrop.  Rulesets that wished to assume all units from
some tech point to have parachutes would just add the flag.

Checking the alien ruleset (at least current SVN trunk), no units would
qualify for is_flying_unit.  Only the two Missiles have fuel, and they aren't
UCF_UNREACHABLE.  On the other hand, because of this, no antigravity unit
would be restricted (which may or may not be OK, depending on your conception
of flight patterns for these units).  That said, I well understand that this
is more a coincidence than an argument for non-conflict: which of UCF_* or
UTYF_* do you think would be a better choice to set a "high-altitude" or
"continuous flight" (precise nomenclature to be determined)?  I lean towards
UCF_*, but I chose to have lots of different classes for my ruleset for other
reasons anyway: I don't know whether this would be the correct choice for
other folk.

Also, aside from the definition of is_flying_unit(), are there also issues
with the implementation of the cannot-load and cannot-unload aspects of the
patch?

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://gna.org/patch/?3804>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to