[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6941) Mission Orders

["Raimar Falke" <i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6941 >

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:28:29AM -0800, Arnstein Lindgard wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6941 >
> 
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:07:44 -0800 Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Arnstein Lindgard wrote:
> > > > Feature: Delayed execute Orders in combination with Goto.
> > >
> > > While the feature is an interesting one, I think that it should be done in
> > > the client. Server is for determining outcomes of basic action request
> > > only.
> > 
> > Well, remember that execution of goto is in the server - and for a very
> > good reason (lag). It does make sense to me on some level to have 'delayed
> > orders after goto' also in server.
> > 
> > I'd like to hear more about the pros and cons on this from the patch
> > author.
> 
> Well I've been playing all multiplayer games with this in the client
> for a long time. One problem is that when more than one settler tries
> to build on the same turn, only one will do so, probably because of
> the name popup request, even when the popup is suppresed. This could
> be kludged.
> 
> Generally, the lag makes the mission as a whole seem slow --
> with server execution it is seamless.
> 
> It is much better to give the order first, because you will often
> know what you want the unit(s) to DO at the destination at the time
> you issue the goto(s). Once Mass Orders is implemented and players
> get used to this convenience, we may have a situation where lots of
> clients complete their gotomissions at _the beginning of the turn_.
> It's not that the packets themselves are very big, the problem is
> that this phase of the game is already crowded with traffic.
> 
> This is already a problem with the CMA, and I think it would be
> preferable to have that in the server as well. When I have many
> cities, I have no choice but to turn off CMA in order not to loose 1
> or 2 seconds in the phase where that actually matters. It's like, a
> Frigate has attack 4, defense 2.
> 
> In multiplayer, players at war must resolve the most critical
> situations as fast as possible at the beginning of the turn, and I
> would rather not add annoyances.
> 
> However, with server implemented Mission Orders, the unit need only
> send one packet to the client, containing the new activity after the
> goto. As opposed to first sending "idle", waiting for client to
> respond, then sending update back, for each unit.

So wouldn't it be better if the server supports more advanced orders
like:
  goto (x,y)
  if there is an enemy in the adjacent tiles:
    attack
  else:
    fortify
?

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  "The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to
   constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every
   appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA
   statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This
   also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi
   change."
    -- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers