From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28324 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2003 02:31:01 -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 28317 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2003 02:31:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO garm.central.cmich.local) (141.209.15.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Sep 2003 02:31:00 -0000 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:30:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44EC670014; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 04:53:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Lincoln Peters Cc: Xconq list Subject: Re: Bugs in Bellum Aeternum In-Reply-To: <1064451785.1851.5.camel@odysseus.peterslan> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Sep 2003 02:30:59.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E3AE4A0:01C3830D] X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00450.txt.bz2 On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Lincoln Peters wrote: > I was thinking that it might be useful to have finer control over the > supply system. For example, I might want a base to give higher priority > to aircraft when supplying fuel, since they would die without it. I see. Well, I did rearrange the order of the materials last night, so at least you'll have improved visual feedback, but not finer control, unfortunately. > > Capitols are not meant to be easy to take or destroy. You > > correctly note that only Armor has enough oomph (and just barely) > > to make a successful capture attempt against a Capitol. I have not > > added a Stormtroopers unit type, but if I do, then it will also > > have that ability. The question is, does the module need yet > > another land unit type? > > What I was thinking was that, in most games, the capital is fairly easy > to capture if it is not well-garrisoned. However, in a few games > (insect.g comes to mind), the only way to defeat another side is to > destroy its capital. I wasn't sure if you wanted it to be set up so > that there would be that small chance of successful capture. Yes. Do you think it is too small? It is a 1 in 20 chance, iirc, and if you bring enough armor for the task, probability is that the Capitol will fall sooner rather than later.... > > So you like Grand Citadels? Do you think they are too powerful or > > too cheap (compared with Towns)? > > Well, they're certainly not cheap, but in the long run, they give far > better results than a simple town. Agreed. :-) > It looks like engineers can try to clear mines and shipwrecks, but they > can't do anything to ruins. Yeah, I noticed that when I looked at the module yesterday. I guess the computer forgot to record that thought when I had it.... > I think I tried using hp-min once, and it worked. Although that was a > while ago. Well, if you are still kicking Bellum's tires, I am now using it for Ruins, so you can see if it still works. > Looking back at his e-mail, I can certainly see the advantages to a more > powerful standing orders mechanism. Particularly if it could: > > * Distinguish between a specific (perhaps named) unit and any unit of a > particular type (e.g. should the dive bomber occupy *any* aircraft > carrier, or only a particular carrier?). > > * Allow users to selectively apply standing orders to specific units. > > * Allow defensive units (e.g. fighters) to respond immediately when a > hostile unit (e.g. bombers) is sighted within r units of the place it's > defending. > > * Perform a task involving a unit or location that is unknown at the > time that the order was given (e.g. a patrolling fighter cannot know > ahead of time where enemy bombers will be sighted). > > * Disregard previously-declared standing orders. I think these are good ideas. > I think that, as Hans said, an improved pathfinding algorithm that could > actually find the fastest route would be the best solution. Although > using waypoints in conjunction with standing orders might eventually > yield more effective possibilities for automated patrolling units. One idea I have, regarding waypoints, would be to allow them to be assigned to units/transports and not just fixed coordinates. > One last thing I noticed is that, as of when I last updated from CVS > (about 10 minutes ago), ruins now get 1 ACP per turn. However, there is > nothing I can tell that they can do with that ACP! But, if you send an Engineers into a Ruins, then the Ruins should be able to perform a disband action, because the Engineers doubles (in theory, haven't tested this yet) the Ruins' ACP, thereby giving it 2 ACP, which should be sufficient to do a disband. I was going to test this RSN (I checked it in yesterday, because I thought there was a good chance that it would work, and it wasn't harming anything if it didn't). Also, once the Ruins gets down to 2 HP, you should be able to withdraw the Engineers and let the Ruins finish itself off. Obviously this is also untested, and there is a higher chance that this might not work correctly, since I haven't looked at the interpolation-list code in a while. Regards, Eric