From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8878 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2003 16:09:18 -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 8871 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2003 16:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO garm.central.cmich.local) (141.209.15.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2003 16:09:17 -0000 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:09:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6435970014; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:09:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:50:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Peter Garrone Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: pathfinding refueling In-Reply-To: <20031220065220.GD1667@leonardo> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2003 16:09:12.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B9EAF80:01C3C713] X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg01088.txt.bz2 On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Peter Garrone wrote: > These scenarios are not from any game in the library. Correct. And I did not claim they were. Nonetheless, they are valid hypothetical scenarios. (And actually, if you look at the amount of c and f1 that are available to land units in Bellum, you might recognize how close this is to the fuel1 and fuel2 of the proposed scenarios.) > No rational game would have > separate sorts of extremely limited range fuels refueled from different > points like this. So I guess Bellum isn't rational.... Please let me know how you would do things differently. > In such situations the player guides the unit to refueling points > (wo)manually and presses t for take. The player could do that if he or she wished to, but as I stated, the player was requesting a final destination B from the pathfinder. So, the question is, how would the pathfinder deal with this? >This sort of combat situation where > fuel etc is short should not be automated How do you prevent it from being automated if automation was requested? > But if the requirement were that all such situations should be > automated, then the approach I have advocated would be in error. If the player requests automation, then automation is indeed a requirement. (And this is no different than present behavior.) > that is not what I am trying to achieve anyway. I dont think its what > you would really like either, Eric. In a scenario 1-like situation, I would probably move the unit by hand. In a scenario 2-like situation, I might let the automation do the work to a avoid the "clickathon". > player just does what is done now. But the approach I am outlining > simply reduces the micromanagement associated with > 1) ferrying aircraft from point of production to the front. As Bruno would probably mention, standing orders also do this. (Though they take some effort to set up initially). But, I agree, that your approach would likely work well in dealing with this case. > 2) combat situations where aircraft have to continuously get fuel almost > every turn. It is less clear how your proposal would help here. I think that the second scenario (or variations thereof) might show up fairly frequently in this case. > I have spent hours on all these emails. I would rather just code up my > approach now thanks. Fat chance. So then code it up. I already told you that I am not stopping you (I cannot stop you). Just don't expect me to check it in; I think your proposed solution is a bit narrow-minded in some cases.