[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#11144) 7 science points expected but only 6 received

["Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa" <vasc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=11144 >

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Jason Short wrote:

> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=11144 >

> 1.  If nobody bothers to manage workers by hand then why do we have
> worker placement?  The CMA is just a workaround to the problem that the
> game is more fun without such micro-management.  The only answer is that
> the whole method of worker placement is flawed.  A system like MoM/MoO2

I couldn't agree more.

> uses is likely to give better results, and I believe is possible to
> implement without doing anything too ugly or breaking our existing rules.

Nice!

> 2.  The rearrangement comes as a result of a player move, but because AI
> players are handled as part of the player end-turn, there is no
> opportunity for the client-side CMA to take effect.  If it were a human
> player moving the settlers, the rearrangement wouldn't be a problem
> because the CMA settings would still take effect again before the end of
> the turn.

Indeed. We must still fix this, for a single reason. We want to have
Civilization I & II (TM) compatible game modes for nostalgia's sake and
at least the AI needs to know how to rearrange workers for those
cases. However, I don't think we should care for it being hard for
players to arrange workers in such cases. I consider it a "feature" that
makes the game a more reliable facsimile of the original.

> 3.  It is ridiculous for the server to arrange workers only for the
> client to change them back.  Yet as we've seen it is impossible for the
> client to arrange the workers in this situation.  The only solution here
> is that the client must not do arrangement itself, but should send the
> parameters for arrangement to the server.

Yes.

---
Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa @ Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa