Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Incorrect occupation (PR#625)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Incorrect occupation (PR#625)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Incorrect occupation (PR#625)
From: Thue <thue@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 06:53:38 -0800 (PST)

Here is an implementation of 1)

-Thue

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 21:50:29 Thue wrote:
> >The turn after an enemy unit moves off of a city tile, it still is
> prohibited
> >from working that tile.
> 
> Ok, how should this work?
> 1) Should the unavailable be updated as a unit moves (which would be very
> easy to do),
> 
> or
> 
> 2) should squares that a unit spend the between-turn time in be
> unavailable
> until the squares have spend a between-turns update unoccupied?
> 
> I say we update the squares as units are moved.
> 
> It is currently handled as 2), but it isn't consistant. If you cause a
> call
> to send_adjacent_cities(), fx by moving a worker in a nearby city, any
> unavailable squares will be updated.
> I think it is handled as 2) in civ II, but I consider it a bug, and so
> not
> worthy of emulation...
> (Just getting your opinion before making the patch.)
> 
> -Thue

Attachment: update_occupied_tiles.diff
Description: Binary data


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Incorrect occupation (PR#625), Thue <=