Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4260) Re: (PR#4332) get_defender bug
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4260) Re: (PR#4332) get_defender bug

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kenn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4260) Re: (PR#4332) get_defender bug
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:40:43 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> Here are my recommendations:
>
> 1. DS_NO_CONTACT should be considered as neutral, because you cannot
> attack a no-contact player.As your unit approaches their unit, you
> establish contact and the state changes to DS_NEUTRAL (function
> make_contact), so the attack is impossible.
>
> 2. get_defender should return a defender irrespectfully of alliances (what
> if AI wants to consider feasibility of attack on it's now-ally?).
> Corresponding changes should be made to handle_unit_move_request, to
> prevent actual attack against allies.

Yes, I agree with these changes. However, much care should be taken when
doing them, because a lot of code assumes their current brokenness. The
idea that pplayers_at_war() when not in contact is well-entrenched in the
AI codebase.

  - Per




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4260) Re: (PR#4332) get_defender bug, Per I. Mathisen <=