[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [IAMBACK] [PATCH] [1.3] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 03:17:26AM CEST, I got a letter,
where Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> > + if (unit_type_flag(unit_type, F_IGTER)) {
> > + /* Not quite right... */
> > + /* TODO: Use something like IGTER_MOVE_COST. -- Raahul */
> > + move_rate *= SINGLE_MOVE;
> > + }
> >
> > + if (unit_types[unit_type].move_type == LAND_MOVING) {
> > + if (boatspeed > 0) {
> > + /* It's either city or too far away, so don't bother with
> > + * victim_move_rate. */
> > + move_time = (warmap.cost[boatx][boaty] + move_rate - 1) /
> > move_rate
> > + + 1 + warmap.seacost[x][y] / boatspeed; /* kludge */
> > + if (unit_type_flag(unit_type, F_MARINES)) move_time -= 1;
> > +
> > + } else if (warmap.cost[x][y] <= move_rate) {
> > + /* It's adjacent. */
> > + move_time = 1;
> > +
> > + } else {
> >
I'm everytime puzzled with those dramatical mysterious pauses.. like you wanted
to say something, then changed your mind.. ;)
> > + /* Citywalls give a defensive bonus of 300%. So for units that lack
> > the
> > + * ability to ignore city walls, the lack of a city wall makes them
> > 3
> > + * times as dangerous. Yet in this check we multiply by 9.
> > WHY????????
> > + * (Pulls out hair and screams). -- Raahul */
> > + /* FIXME: Use acity->ai.wallvalue? --pasky */
> > + vuln *= 9;
> > + }
> >
> > Raahul, please stop ruining your hairstyle!
> > City walls give bonus of 200% (that's multiplying by 3)
> > vulnerability is quadratic, so we perform mental calculation
> > 3*3 = 9 and fill in the result
>
> Back the truck up there G. I'm not quite sure I follow. Yes, vulnerability is
> quadratic. From there to multiplying city wall value by 3 is beyond me.
> Explain
> it to me without the missing steps.
It's 300%, he tried to fool you ;).
> > All of my complaints are about your comments which is non-essential.
> > I haven't checked line-by-line correspondence but if you run a few
> > autogames, I think the patch can be safely committed and human resources
> > directed to pastures new (like the dreaded and bugged f_s_t_k).
>
> Not the f_s_t_k. Anything but that. What have I done to deserve this?
Muahahahaha >:).
Don't fear, we'll shield you..
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
* ELinks maintainer * IPv6 guy (XS26 co-coordinator)
* IRCnet operator * FreeCiv AI hacker
.
Teamwork is essential -- it allows you to blame someone else.
.
Public PGP key && geekcode && homepage: http://pasky.ji.cz/~pasky/
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [IAMBACK] [PATCH] [1.3] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Petr Baudis, 2002/04/05
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [IAMBACK] [PATCH] [1.3] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Raahul Kumar, 2002/04/06
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [IAMBACK] [PATCH] [1.3] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Gregory Berkolaiko, 2002/04/06
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] [1.4] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Petr Baudis, 2002/04/07
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] [1.4] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Raahul Kumar, 2002/04/07
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] [1.5] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295), Petr Baudis, 2002/04/08
|
|