Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: June 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: packet batches? (was: [Patch] Making city report list
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: packet batches? (was: [Patch] Making city report list

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: packet batches? (was: [Patch] Making city report list faster)
From: Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:51:32 +0200

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:27:13PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:04:35PM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 07:52:40PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > The amount of possible "cheating" is limited by the fixed TCP packet size.
> > 
> > I'm not sure about this. The server executes all requests which have
> > found its way into the receiving socket buffer of the connection. Why
> > should this be limited to a TCP packet size if the server is slow? 
> 
> Good point, with AI the server can become very slow.
> 
> So adding an AI player decreases the amount of interleaving of client
> requests.  This means if A, B and C are playing, and A attacks B's city
> with 5 units at once, A's has a much better chance of success when C is
> an AI player!

But only with a lagless network and client AIs for A and B.

I understand that you can send a bunch of howitzers to a city and
attack it a dozen times. In this case the city is conquered even before
B is aware of being attacked - due to net lag, no matter of client ai
or not. How am I wrong?

Christian

-- 
Christian Knoke     * * *      http://www.enter.de/~c.knoke/
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.


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