From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2461 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2003 05:45:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2452 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2003 05:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp804.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.183) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2003 05:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 6-allhosts) (sampln@sbcglobal.net@64.175.248.254 with plain) by smtp804.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2003 05:45:04 -0000 Subject: Re: Cannot do anything in water From: Lincoln Peters To: Jim Kingdon Cc: Xconq list In-Reply-To: <200312150438.hBF4c7w02582@panix5.panix.com> References: <1070854101.22214.7955.camel@odysseus> (message from Lincoln Peters on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:28:22 -0800) <1070854101.22214.7955.camel@odysseus> <1071462057.11561.24.camel@odysseus> <200312150438.hBF4c7w02582@panix5.panix.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071467239.11561.578.camel@odysseus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:42:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg01043.txt.bz2 On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 20:38, Jim Kingdon wrote: > > I also noticed that, in roman.g, an infantry sometimes expends an ACP > > while trying to cross a river, but doesn't actually cross the river. > > Even stranger, if I tell it to move to a non-adjacent cell, it seems > > that the ACP readout shows "ACP 1", when it should say "ACP 1/2"! > > roman.g is a bit strange with respect to ACP because it sets acp-min > to negative values. Actually, I used acp-min in bolodd2.g. Although I do notice one difference between roman.g's use of acp-min and bolodd2.g's use of it: roman.g allows ACP to spend twice as many ACP's as it gets every turn (e.g. if infantry gets 2 ACP per turn, it may go down to -2 ACP). This means that if a unit performs a difficult task (e.g. crosses a river) or is under heavy fire, it will have a total of 0 ACP at the start of the next turn. In bolodd2.g, the units I defined differed only in that they would always have at least 1 ACP at the start of each turn (e.g. a tank that gets 4 ACP per turn can only go down to -3 ACP). It's not a very big difference in how acp-min is used; if acp-min was the culprit, I'd expect the bug to produce the same effects in bolodd2.g and roman.g (and it doesn't; roman.g doesn't have any problems with naval units). -- Lincoln Peters