Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>  Short answer: It was probably implemented with some specific unit in mind
> to begin with, getting some of the details right more by coincidence than
> correct design, and it has been subject to some bitrot.

    Heh.  That makes it easier :)

> On 18 April 2013 23:42, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> >     One thought I had was to remove all hardcoded terrain and transport
> > restrictions, allow bombard if can_exist_at_tile() when the target has
> > UCF_CAN_FORTIFY and otherwise perform a normal attack, but I don't know
> > if there are uses of bombarders that would be broken with such a
> > solution, or if regardless of current uses, there is an interest in
> > making it even more general (e.g. using another vector to determine
> > targets or similar).
> >
> 
>  In general that sounds like a right direction to go. Just don't reuse
> CanFortify for something unrelated (as far as I can see).

    I was thinking that the ability to fortify was semantically similar 
to the ability to avoid being killed by a bombardier: the unit in 
question would be able to hunker down using available cover to protect 
themselves (whereas a unit unable to fortify presumably cannot use 
available cover, so cannot protect themselves from the bombardier). That 
said, I'll implement it with a different flag: do you think it should be 
UTYF, UCF, or UCF+UTYF exception?

-- 
Emmet HIKORY

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

Reply via email to