Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: movement

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: movement

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jason Short <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: movement
From: "Anthony J. Stuckey" <astuckey@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:20:29 -0500

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:28:27PM -0500, Jason Short wrote:
> Oh yeah :-).  The list then becomes
> 0 - A move that takes too many movement points will always be completed.
> 1 - A move that takes too many movement points will never be completed.
> 2 - Unused movement points get saved for next turn.
> 3 - Moves that take too many movement points are not completed, but the
>      movement points will carry over for the same move next turn.
> 4 - A move that takes too many movement points will be completed, but
>      the extra movement points will be taken from the next turn's moves.
> ...and...
> 0 - No move can take more than a unit's maximum number of moves.
> 1 - (the opposite - won't work well except with 0 and 4 above).
> This is a *lot* of different options to support, but it might be a good 
> list from which to vote.

        0 is clearly a bad option.  It allows some serious excesses.  As far as
I can tell, the only argument in it's favor is that it's consistent with
the "attacking a tile with a unit that has too few movement points to
unconditionally move there is still allowed" rule.
        1 is somewhat better, although it penalizes behavior that is moderately

        2, 3, and 4 are all variants of the middle ground between 0 and 1.

        0, 1, and 2 are the easiest to code and understand.  A minor grace.

        2 still allows excesses.

        Is there anybody who is deeply opposed to the behavior of 1?

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