This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Cow patties, and keeping them asleep


>I have no problems with your patch, but I want to wait and see what
>others say first, before applying it.
>
>> Also, I wonder if this might have bizarre consequences for the AI.  I
>> don't know if the AI pays attention to when units do or don't wake up, but
>> if it does pay attention to that, it could be confused.  (Or this flag,
>> judiciously used, could steer the AI to *better* behaviour... hard to
>> predict.)
>
>The AI does not make use of sleep as of present, IIRC.

It does, however, use reserve mode a lot, which is also reset by wake_unit.
And wake_unit itself is used a lot by the AI.

In any case, I think this patch is OK since it defaults to the current
behaviour. If there are problems with the AI or otherwise, that will not
affect existing games.

>I had in mind that the reciprocal 'acp-occupant-effect' would be useful
>in cases where the factor would not be 0%, but merely something that
>would decrease/increase the occ's ACP. I have had use for this before,
>but the idea that it might be useful to someone else as well, motivated
>me to consider making the change.

This could be a useful addition, but I think two separate tables is the way
to go. We have one reciprocal table in this sense, uu_protection, and it
has been the source of much confusion over the years. It should also be
clear from the table name what it does. I never liked "acp-occupant-effect"
for that reason. Something like occupant-affects-acp and
transport-affects-acp would be better.

Hans



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]