[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Twitch-guard

[Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, 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.
> 
> I don't know if it's a good idea, but it seems an interesting one to
> try out.

It is an interesting idea, but I don't see how it can work.  Consider
these cases.

1) On a very large ccontinent, a placer wishes to send a settler from one
end to the other on a railroad.  Assume there is a timeout in the
game.  All the territory is safely controlled by the settler's owner, so
there shouldn't be a delay.

2) An undefended city is locked off by a battleship as shown:

.....           .=water
...A.           A=Alpine troops
..l..           l=(empty) land
.C...           C=(undefended) city
....B           B=battleship

Now, the owner of the city doesn't know the battleship is there, but the
owner of the battleship is counting on preventing ground re-inforcements
from reaching the city.  If the Alpine Troops pause, then their owner will
know *something* is waiting to attack, but if they don't, this strategy
won't work.

I don't really see a way to make this work, but maybe there is one.

--Daniel Speyer
"May the /src be with you, always"


> 
> Jules
> 
>