Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10830) Trirem doesn't want to move
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10830) Trirem doesn't want to move

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Francois-Xavier.Coudert@xxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10830) Trirem doesn't want to move
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:08:58 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=10830 >

Christian Knoke wrote:

> Can or cannot be. But if you do, when pointing a trireme to the unknown, you
> will have to decide, *how* unsecure the way to be taken will be. Will the
> trireme move the straight way to the target, which will make it unlikely
> that it reaches it at all? Or will it hold at the coast for as long as
> possible (like it currently does for secure targets), which will give very
> odd routes in some cases.

The latter is very difficult I think.  So we will probably use the 
former.  What we can do is have an increased move cost for unknown tiles 
so units will tend to avoid them.  With a move cost of 10 (say) it will 
be very rare for units to goto *though* the unknown - they will only 
goto *into* the unknown if you tell them to.

Which, I suppose, is what you wanted with the latter option anyway.

> Maybe an 'unsecure' option for the goto? Holding the shift key while pointing
> to the target will turn the arrow color to red and let the client goto
> choose the direkt way.

Better to do this as a client option I think.  However we first need 
client option categories (which is one of my goals for 2.1).

For 2.0 I'm not sure how, if at all, the current behavior should be changed.

jason




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