Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Twitch-guard
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Twitch-guard

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Asher Densmore-Lynn <jesdynf@xxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Twitch-guard
From: Daniel Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:40:35 +0200

On 2001-09-21 10:10:57, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 10:57:08AM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > So you propose a minimal time between steps?! From the point of view
> > of the player/agent who sees a unit moving it is ok. However from the
> > point of view of the player/agent which does the move it
> > isn't. Imaging that you can't move your settler down the road with 3
> > key presses which but have to wait for some seconds between each. The
> > same applied for agents. Agents may perform them in parallel but you
> > have other problems with synchronization.
> 
> The suggestion is a little more sophisticated than that. Minimal time
> under certain circumstances: for example, one mechanism would be that
> whenever you move into an enemy's ZOC, you cannot move that unit again 
> for some period of time. This would give the enemy a change to respond 
> to rush attacks.

Actually, I read the suggestion differently than both of you... :)
This suggestion requires borders (or something like it but since we want
borders anyway?) and consists of setting a time limit such that you
cannot take more than one step in enemy territoty with any unit until
that limit has been reached... Not that complex really, in theory at
least... :) You could have a second variable, deciding how many steps
you are allowed to take in the specified time - setting this to 0 would
force all fighting to the end of the turn (setting it to 1 would force
all suprise attacks to the end of the turn) - I think that sounds like an
option worth having...

Hmmm...
Now that I think about it I'm not entirely sure that this was what was
meant but if not consider it a new suggestion... :) I'm also uncertain
if Jules meant to say the same thing or not... Did you mean that there
would be a penalty for _entering_ enemy's ZOC? Certainly that is an
interesting thought whether or not it was the original suggestion...
Also, the penalty could be given at entrance to ZOC or crossing of
border - crossing of border "feels" more "right" to me but the ZOC
variant could be implemented right now...

> I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seems an interesting one to
> try out.

I agree...
Can't hurt to have it as an option... :)

/Daniel

-- 
Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]