[Freeciv-Dev] Re: irc summary

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Christian Knoke wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:34:17PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 09:08:21AM -0500, Anthony J. Stuckey wrote:
> > 
> > >   Since *EVERYBODY* seems to agree that the partial-movement-points-fails
> > > patch is a good idea, I think the issue of absolute compatbility is 
> > > already
> > > settled as a no.
> 
> Hhm, I'm ambivalent on this. First I think it doesn't harm, to remove
> the uncertainty about a move's success. And if it's good for the AI ...
> 
> But then it means every unit can move 2 tiles on the road plus one
> off-road per turn. The advantage of alpine troops is reduced. The diffi-
> culty of terrain changes, i.e. mountains are much easier to climb on.
> Not to say civ 2 compatibility, it's on the roadmap at least.

Personally, I think that full civ2 compatibility should get stuffed.

As for alpines becoming less valuable, we can take a middle ground between 
civ3 and civ2 with the following rule:

a move costing move_cost will succeed if 
* the unit hasn't moved this turn
or
* unit->move_points > move_cost * COEFF

This will make moves 
* fully deterministic, so AI and path finding will cope well
* customizable: COEFF = 0 corresponds to civ3 rules, COEFF = 1/2 
corresponds (on average) to the current rule.

If COEFF is greater than epsilon > 0, it means that a unit with 1/3 MP 
left will no longer be able to climb a hill, let alone a mountain.

Again, personally I am in favour of COEFF = 0 once and for all, as 
more complicated rules do not have a good effect on the gameplay.
And there are other ways of making Alpines better, if desired.

But I just wanted to mention the above possibility.

G.

> 
> (It's another issue: Do we still want to go civ2? Aren't we
> already there? We could give it up, and then change some other
> rules, too. But do it explicitely.)
> 
> I understand it's not an option to make it an option ;)
> 
> And I don't like the idea to change the rules so that the AI can 
> handle it.
> 
> > I doubt it is a good idea.  If I understand correctly,
> > it would mean that units with 0 < something < 1 moves left would
> > always get to execute a move.   That really makes a difference in battle.
> > 
> > Changing things like this without announcing is typical of Freeciv.
> > I think it would be good to consult experienced players like Pille.
> 
> Christian
> 
>