Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Unit-vs-stack sim (was: Cache win_chance)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Unit-vs-stack sim (was: Cache win_chance)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Unit-vs-stack sim (was: Cache win_chance)
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:38:21 +0100 (MET)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:
> I was wrong. occupychance is for entering a city _without_ any enemy
> units. So unit-vs-stack is always a unit-vs-unit combat. This makes
> implementing this really more complex. Because you can't estimate an
> _exact probabilities_ for a combat you have to introduce abstract
> attack and defense powers. And these number are neither fixed nor easy
> do calculate. Doh! I wanted to avoid this.

603   { "occupychance", &game.occupychance, NULL, NULL,
606     N_("Chance of moving into tile after attack"),
607     N_("If set to 0, combat is Civ1/2-style (when you attack, you remain in 
"
608        "place).  If set to 100, attacking units will always move into the "
609        "tile they attacked if they win the combat (and no enemy units 
remain "
610        "in the tile).  If set to a value between 0 and 100, this will be 
used "
611        "as the percent chance of \"occupying\" territory."), NULL, NULL, 0 
},

Is this what you mean? I don't see how this has anything to do with
defenderless cities. If it is a problem that is has % chances, just change
it to a bool. You like bools, don't you? ;) None will miss that excess
functionality.

Yours,
Per

"What we anticipate seldom occurs: but what we least expect generally
happens." -- Benjamin Disraeli





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