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: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2581) Layers Patch
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 21:33:42 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Juhani Heino wrote:
> They were not weights, but priorities given - only the units
> at the highest priority are compared otherwise. So this is meant
> to be totally predictable (if you know what units there are).

Why is it necessary? What problem does it solve?

> And Sea units can't be 'ground' because ground units can't
> attack them. layer_priority() was made to be as general
> as possible.

I am thinking we should keep which-unit-can-attack-which-unit rules out of
this. They are fine as they are, and layers based rules to replace them
will be rather complicated, I fear.

(In any case, I don't see a problem with sea and ground units being in the
same layer. We will have to special case attacks into terrain where you
cannot ever move, anyway.)

> One afterthought - I commented that you can remove the
> strafing possibility by changing the fighter value to 15.
> But that would mean we should add a function is_cargo()
> to see if defending aircraft is in air or on carrier.

IMHO, too complicated. Anything that makes the player want to un-sentry
individual air units on a carrier every turn is bad.

> While I was at it, I thought that some if not all
> functionality of can_unit_attack_unit_at_tile() could
> be moved to layer_priority().

This is possible, but what do we gain? How much extra complexity will have
to be added? I think this should at least wait until after generalised
unit effects, when crosslayer attacks can be specified as an effect.

  - Per

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