[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8483) killstack and damage patch

["LoboGris" <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8483 >

Jason Short wrote:

><URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8483 >
>
>LoboGris wrote:
>  
>
>><URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8483 >
>>
>>Description: two new ruleset options that modifies combat rules
>>
>>killstack:
>>
>>;If this is set to 1, all units in the same tile of a killed unit will
>>;be killed (unless they are on a fortress, airbase or city). This is the
>>;freeciv default.
>>;If this options is set to 0, units are killed one by one,
>>;except by nuclear weapons, of course.
>>    
>>
>
>I thought this was already an option?  I guess not.
>  
>
Actually not, although has been discussed more than once before.

>  
>
>>damage:
>>
>>; If damage is set to a large number (e.g. 255), a battle ends until one
>>; of the units is destroyed. This is the freeciv default.
>>; If is set to a low number instead (e.g. 15), both units can survive after
>>; one attack. Adjust this number at taste. For numbers less than or equal 1
>>; the efect is the same.
>>    
>>
>
>Um, shouldn't this be a boolean?  I don't understand the significance of 
>the integer value.
>  
>
The amount of hit points lossed in a combat is regulated by this number. 
With a small number, the damage is small, and the lost hit points are fewer.

>Also, in the patch it looks like this value is never checked.  So this 
>option has no effect.  Or did I miss something?
>  
>
Ooops...I had extracted all this from a bigger patch and I forget a 
part. I will send a fixed patch in a moment.

>Also, I don't like the name "damage".  Surely something more descriptive 
>is possible?  Although I'm still not sure exactly what you're describing.
>  
>
Damage means the damage (indirectly, but not exactly, the lost hit 
points) that a unit receive in a combat round. See the following patch I 
will send.

>Also, I think the bombardment patch implements something similar but on 
>a unit-specific basis.  I suspect the method used by that patch is 
>probably better.
>
>Finally, it looks like the client never properly receives these values. 
>  They are packaged in server/ruleset.c but are not unpackaged in 
>client/packhand.c.  (Note that the client never uses this value anyway.)
>  
>
Yes, that is because the client never uses this values. ¿should I fix 
this anyway?

P.D.: sorry my ugly english.