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: Major bug and what to do about it (long)


On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:

> Now the ball returns to the AI, who should find something else for our unit
> to do. However, the AI still sees the same unit view and doesn't know that
> the task failed, so it sets the same hit_unit task again. 

If the action check failed because the unit view doesn't not 
correspond to an actual unit at the given position, then the task 
logic should make a callback to the AI or UI to remove the unit 
view, IMO. This would break the cycle.

However, the unit should be penalized (in terms of ACP, 
material expenditure, etc...) for attempting the action on a 
"ghost" unit. I believe I have mentioned this before, either in 
private email or on the list. In that case, what motivated me to 
mention it was the fire-at-ghost-unit / fire-into cell case. I 
believe this was shortly after I made a fix so that one could not 
probe from cell to cell using the fire command to discover where 
hidden enemy units were.

I will reply in greater detail to some of your other thoughts 
after I get home tonight. There is a lot to carefully examine....

Eric


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