Re: pathfinding refueling

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Peter Garrone wrote:

> These scenarios are not from any game in the library.

Correct. And I did not claim they were. Nonetheless, they are 
valid hypothetical scenarios.

(And actually, if you look at the amount of c and f1 that are 
available to land units in Bellum, you might recognize how close 
this is to the fuel1 and fuel2 of the proposed scenarios.)

> No rational game would have
> separate sorts of extremely limited range fuels refueled from different
> points like this. 

So I guess Bellum isn't rational....
Please let me know how you would do things differently.

> In such situations the player guides the unit to refueling points
> (wo)manually and presses t for take. 

The player could do that if he or she wished to, but as I stated, 
the player was requesting a final destination B from the 
pathfinder. So, the question is, how would the pathfinder deal 
with this?

>This sort of combat situation where
> fuel etc is short should not be automated

How do you prevent it from being automated if automation was 
requested?

> But if the requirement were that all such situations should be
> automated, then the approach I have advocated would be in error.

If the player requests automation, then automation is indeed a 
requirement. (And this is no different than present behavior.)

> that is not what I am trying to achieve anyway. I dont think its what
> you would really like either, Eric.

In a scenario 1-like situation, I would probably move the unit by 
hand. In a scenario 2-like situation, I might let the automation 
do the work to a avoid the "clickathon".

> player just does what is done now. But the approach I am outlining
> simply reduces the micromanagement associated with
> 1) ferrying aircraft from point of production to the front.

As Bruno would probably mention, standing orders also do this. 
(Though they take some effort to set up initially).
But, I agree, that your approach would likely work well in dealing 
with this case.

> 2) combat situations where aircraft have to continuously get fuel almost
> every turn.

It is less clear how your proposal would help here. I think that 
the second scenario (or variations thereof) might show up fairly 
frequently in this case.

> I have spent hours on all these emails. I would rather just code up my
> approach now thanks. Fat chance.

So then code it up. I already told you that I am not stopping you 
(I cannot stop you). Just don't expect me to check it in; I think 
your proposed solution is a bit narrow-minded in some cases.