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: CRT Combat Model (long)


>You can also manually trigger the "return to nearest base" behavior by
>hitting the "r" key (at least in the tcltk user interface).

Yes. Or the "return" menu item. But the ai won't do it for you, which I
think is what Bill had in mind.

>> The answer is that you can turn ai-control on or off for individual
>> units, but control is an all-or-nothing decision.
>
>In the tcltk interface, there is a "More/Plan Type" menu item.  It
>seemed to more or less work last time I tried it, although when I
>showed it to Stan he was like "really?  Oh that is strange, having the
>AI on locally but without reference to a global AI" (or something like
>that).

Heh. That was exactly Stan's reaction when I asked him about the plan type
menu, too. It was this that got me started on the semi-automatic ai. You
can indeed set the plan type manually with this menu. However, it achieves
absolutely nothing. If the unit is under manual control, the plan is never
used. And if the unit is under ai control, the first thing the ai does is
to scrap your plan and pick its own.

>> If people think this would be useful I could perhaps dig up the code
>> and get it to work again.
>
>If there were more useful plans, it might be very useful.  For
>example, the defensive plan is almost what I want (sometimes), but
>units on defensive aren't quite active enough in terms of patrolling.
>In the standard game they do things like "occupy town xxx" which just
>makes them sitting ducks given the capture-chance and the
>protection values (if the capture-chance were smaller or the
>protection were greater, it might be different).

I agree that we need more plans. One thing in particular that would be
useful is a PLAN_TRANSPORT. The current transportation code does not work
well, and the main reason is that the units involved tend to forget what
they are supposed to do.

I wrote some code for this, too, which was never checked in. Yet another
one of my unfinished projects ...

Hans

BTW, the "Save and exit" bug does not occur after a "Reference to invalid
unit" warning. I have seen it in other contexts, though, such as warnings
about checksum errors.

Hans Ronne

hronne@pp.sbbs.se



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