Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Freeciv] Re: rfc: autoattack
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Freeciv] Re: rfc: autoattack

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Britton <fsblk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Freeciv] Re: rfc: autoattack
From: Thomas Strub <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:21:39 +0100

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:54:17AM -0900, Britton wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Thomas Strub wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:39:16PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > > This should at least make autoattack useful. The question is: Too useful?
> >
> > wow :-)
> >
> > This helps players with slow connections. I like it.
> > Its a big step against clientsidescripting, and would help the AI too.
> >
> > And perhaps it should be configurablei.
> >
> > a = chance to win
> > b = value of attacking unit
> > c = value of attacked unit
> >
> > And if d = a*c/b bigger than a tuned value -> autoattack.
> 
> There's also the question of initiative.  In a situation where a high
> attack/low defense unit moves in next to another such unit, it doesn't
> seem to me that the moving unit should always be the one to get attacked.
> In other words, you should be able to set your moving units to attempt to
> try to autoattack as well, and who gets to attack who should be determined
> in some reasonable way (lots of possibilities: who has more movement or
> which unit could move into neighbors square for least cost, if
> one unit can see further than other, etc.).

No random please. I would say goto works -> unit which is moving will
attack. Otherwise the defending unit has the chance to attack.

Thomas


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