[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] aiunit.c ai_military_findvictim() cleanup (PR#1264)

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:16:27PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:10:49PM CET, I got a letter,
> where Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:46:09PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > > Dear diary, on Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:08:40PM CET, I got a letter,
> > > where Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> > > > 2) Can someone explain -2*MORT*TRADE_WEIGHTING?
> > > 
> > > We're cutting off luxury, which is part of trade, so we use 
> > > TRADE_WEIGHTING.
> > > And MORT is just that constant meaning 'reasonably foreseeable (eek?) 
> > > future'.
> > > And 2 is .. looks like just some constant estimated/tuned to have it 
> > > working
> > > well. Any deeper logic in that?
> > 
> > 2 trade to compensate one unhappiness? Related question: what is the
> > range of values of punit->unhappiness? [0..1] (bool) or [0..2] (as 
> >   ./client/gui-win32/mapview.c:  int unhappy = CLIP(0, punit->unhappiness, 
> > 2);
> > ) suggests. Is it valid for a ruleset to set uk_happy >1?
> 
> It looks it's 2 for aggressive units and 1 for other units?

It is 0 for non-aggressive units and it could be the uk_happy value
from the ruleset. However uk_happy in the standard rulesets are all 0
or 1. So currently it is a boolean.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  "With a PC, I always felt limited by the software available.
   On Unix, I am limited by my knowledge."
    -- Peter J. Schoenster <pschon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>