Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10245) gen-movement
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10245) gen-movement

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10245) gen-movement
From: "Marko Lindqvist" <marko.lindqvist@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:12:29 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=10245 >

Jason Short wrote:
> One thing that must be done first is generalization of transporting 
> rules.  Currently ground-transport, air-transport, and missile-transport 
> are all different unit flags.  Way back in RT I discussed systems of 
> generalizing this.  See PR#7354.  However it turned out to be harder 
> than expected.

  As part of gen-movement I would tie transporting capabilities into 
passenger movement type:

  1. Make separate "missile" movement type, working for most part as 
"air" movement.
  2. Give transports list (bitvector) of movement types their passengers 
may have. Unlimited number of movement types do not fit well into this 
plan, but even limit of 16 different types will be enough for any 
sensible use for a long time.

  Ferryboats can transport MT_LAND units, carriers can transport both 
MT_AIR and MT_MISSILE units and missile carriers only MT_MISSILE units.


  Instead of tying transportability 'class' into movement type, we could 
introduce separate enum just for that. At first this sounds like a 
cleaner solution, but OTOH it would mean handling two separate variables 
where one would be enough. This is not only internal matter, but might 
someday affect modpack creation as well. It has also some potential for 
variables-out-of-sync bugs.
  I don't have strong opinions either way.



  - Caz





[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#10245) gen-movement, Marko Lindqvist <=