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] |
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.
Yes, I thought about that. However, since failed tasks do not consume acps,
this would provide a cost-free way to probe the terrain for real vs. bogus
enemy units.
A better solution is therefore to use do_fire_into_action
instead,
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.
Letting the failed task consume acps might work in this specific case,
but
it would go against how Xconq works in all other situations. For example,
if you click where your unit cannot move, you don't spend any acps.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |