[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#13410) War & Peace

["Peter Schaefer" <peter.schaefer@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=13410 >

On 7/5/05, Per I. Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=13410 >
> 
> More effective borders is a very frequent wish from players.
..
>  7. When a peace treaty kicks in, all military units belonging to
> peace-treaty players inside your border are immediately disbanded. They
> cannot send military units through your borders, and non-military units
> are prohibited from most actions. Breaking a peace treaty drops you
> straight to war (dropping to ceasefire might be neat, but would just be
> annoying).

I think this is too brutal. What keeps me from going to peace with the
AI just to disband its units? Couldn't one set a 'rout' flag(white
flag) in the unit to make the unit retreat?

How:
I would basically suggest to keep a distance map that tracks the
distance to the next own city/fortress. (I'm not exactly sure how you
would efficiently handle the disappearance of a city, except by
keeping at least the last city to raise the value of each tile)  Up to
distance borders+3 or so.

Any unit in enemy territory would try

a) if an own distance map is present, move closer to own cities

b) otherwise, try moving away from the enemy cities by using the
distance map of the enemy whose territory we are on.

c) if all attempts to move in the above way fail, disband the unit.

- to assist retreat and avoid it getting stuck, a routed unit could ignore ZOC

a few units would still get stuck if they moved right into a city, but
not as many

ideas: having an EFF_ROUT could open the way for making units run
away, e.g. from war elephants, or winning a phyrus victory with 1 hp
left.

>  8. Non-military units are also prohibited from doing actions that would
> cause 'reason for war' under ceasefire, armistice, peace and alliance. The
> 'reason for war' concept is removed. It was never transparent, and quite
> abusable.

IMO, it should be configurable whether spying and sabotage counts as
reason for war because the diplomat was sort of designed to allow you
to be a little hostile while at peace.


Benoît wrote:

> Flaws:
> (1) if I set up a fortress right next to an enemy unit, I don't get to
>   claim the territory behind me.

If the algorithm determining the distance from friendly cities was
flood fill instead of a beeline, the flood fill could take into
account zone of control, so that a city with an enemy unit straight up
to it would still create 3 borders behind it, and grow borders from
there. The flood fill could also avoid areas closer to other own
cities to be faster.

One problem I see is that when the enemy unit moves out of borders or
within borders, all affected cities(which?) will have to be re-run at
least once a turn.


Jason Short wrote:

> Who "owns" the fortress?

Fortresses should be like cities without workers. Or maybe exactly one
tile worked on. At least, this would open the way for ideas like
upgrading a fortress with coastal batteries and sam defenses


greetings & thx, Peter