Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and route execution
From: "Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:47:05 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:27:09AM -0700, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > Let's say a piece of road in your path, which covered by FoW, has been
> > > pillaged. This means you just lost 3, not 1, MP. When you reach the first
> > > series of dangerous tiles, you (the client) thought you could pass, but in
> > > reality you can't. So you should have stopped.
> >
> > In this case the server should IMHO stop after the step onto this tile
> > because it sees that the moves_left don't match. It should stop and
> > put the unit to idle. Then the client (human or agent) has to produce
> > new commands.
> Ok, this sounds like a plan. But do give a proper feedback to the user,
> like "Goto stopped due to changes in the terrain."

I'm not sure if I will create such a patch.

> > The goto execution should also be aborted if an enemy stands in the
> > path and/or is visible. But there needs to be a possibility to say
> > "attack with this move" which will stop if there is no enemy at the
> > position.
> Yes as a single variable, not per tile. If zero, don't attack if we
> encounter a unit at our destination. 

> Encountering a non-allied unit in our path before our destination
> should always be a mistake, and the goto should abort.

You can construct cases where the unit knows that it will just win the

> > This gets complex and is one of the reasons why goto
> > execution should be done at the client side. At least for the agents.
> If you have the above, I don't see why. Even for agents, you can with
> relative safety send goto execution to server _as long as you don't reduce
> the amount of FoW_.

There is another issue. I will post an RFC soon.


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Just because you put a flag on the moon doesn't make it yours, it just
  puts a hole in the moon."

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