Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jshort@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7230) patrolling tririemes may sink
From: "Raimar Falke" <i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:35:44 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7230 >

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:35:33PM -0800, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7230 >
> 
> If a tririeme patrols around an island (for instance) it may wait and/or
> cross certain dangerous positions.  If its patrol causes it to end up with
> a different number of movement points than it started with, then on the
> second time around it may end up ending its turn on a dangerous position,
> and sinking.
> 
> This is a lesser problem for all units (both because of dangerous
> positions and following optimal terrain paths), but mostly for tririemes. 
> If positions are later labelled as being dangerous on certain "turns" then
> there will be no way to guarantee correctness.
> 
> But as it is, there are several alternatives.
> 
> The simplest solution would be to guarantee that the unit always had the
> same number of MP at start and end of the route.  This is accomplished
>   if the unit starts with less-than-full MP
>     wait at the beginning of the route
>   else if the unit ends with less-than-full MP
>     wait at the end of the route
> this is guaranteed correct but isn't optimal.

I think this solution is acceptable. Especially since the purpose of
patrol if not to go from A to B in the fastest way but to survey the
area.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1




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