Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch 3: ai passive diplomacy + alliances fixes (PR#12
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch 3: ai passive diplomacy + alliances fixes (PR#12

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch 3: ai passive diplomacy + alliances fixes (PR#1277)
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:36:54 +0100 (MET)

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> I 'm curious about that. I thought SDI was city specific. Exactly how does
> SDI in city 1 stop an attack on city 2?

Apparently SDI has a range effect. If the nuke hits one of your units or
cities within this range, then the nuke is cancelled. I merely extended
this to cover your allies' units and cities too.

> > Major questions:
> >  -> Should allied units in your cities help enforce martial law?
>
> No, I wouldn't like that.

Actually, I thought that would be a nice feature. My city is in unrest,
and you have three mech inf standing outside... "Can you please squash
that rebellion for me, Raahul?" :)

> >  -> Should it be possible to teleport or airlift to allied cities?
>
> Makes sense.

Yes, I think so too.

> >  -> Should it be possible for allied caravans to help build wonders?
> >
>
> Of course. Otherwise people will send in units to the allied city, change
> ownership and disband to help build a wonder.

Good point.

> > This part of the code works by magic, as far as i am concerned.
> > (unit->ai.charge is both city and unit id??) I do not believe it needs
> > change to work with peace/alliance.
>
> Yes it does. I demand to know how unit->ai.charge can be both city and unit 
> id.

That puzzled me to no ends as well. It cannot possibly be correct.

> > Correct. We don't want to stay to defend allied cities. Not our problem!
...
> > Changed. AI now looks to allied players' units nearby as
> > possible reinforcements during attacks.
...
> So the units that are not going to stay to defend allied cities are going to 
> be
> looked on as possible reinforcements. Interesting approach.

Hehe. I think the point of this code is: we want to know whether there
will be other units to carry on with further attacks, if the unit
currently being considered attacks, and, say, manages to almost kill a
defending unit. Otherwise the attack was terribly futile. So, if there are
allied units around, they can finish the job too. But it then becomes
_their_ city. Which they will, of course, have to defend as their own.

Yours,
Per

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



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