Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:58:15 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Juhani Heino wrote:
> Check this thoroughly. Raahul's original patch was good help
> but I made this up mostly by myself, and I may have overlooked
> something important.

I only read through the patch quickly.

I didn't understand the need for the layer weights.

The layers discussed earlier gave sharp distinctions between the different
layers. I like this since it makes the game rules predictable. First you
attack your own layer, then you attack the other layer. Only two layers
are needed at this point: 'ground' and 'air'. Sea units are 'ground'.

The reason why I and Greg got renewed interest in layers was because we
found problems in the code that were hard to solve otherwise. I cannot for
the life of me remember what it was we found (exam reading takes its toll
on the mind) but I hope Greg can fill that in. Anyway, the conclusion we
came to was that layers should replace the current code - it should not be
optional. It is just too hard to keep two separete code paths in this area
bug free over a longer period of time.

> can_unit_attack_unit_at_tile() contradicts its comment 4:
> marines can't attack a sea tile. If the comment is valid

It is.

> I moved *_carrier_capacity  functions to more logical place
> inunit.c

Please don't. If you must, supply a _separate_ patch that does nothing but
move it. Try very hard to avoid "patch noise".

> Some suggestions. These may have been discussed earlier, but
> you are welcome to take them to larger audience if you like.
> - Should ships be prevented from attacking ground units from
> harbour?

IMHO, no.

> - When a city is conquered, would it be more natural that its
> units now absent would survive and take another homecity? That
> would also bypass the "stranded" feature mentioned above.

I saw no 'stranded' feature above, but... yes, I think so. Doesn't this
happen already? If not, I remember adding this feature to my new stack
resolve code patch (not posted yet).

  - Per

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