From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1747 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2004 19:33:54 -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 1725 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2004 19:33:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) (81.228.10.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jul 2004 19:33:53 -0000 Received: by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 5EC2937E49; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:33:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.181]) by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E70537E42; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:33:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581C337E47; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 21:33:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407041512.i64FCx018057@panix5.panix.com> References: (message from Hans Ronne on Sun, 4 Jul 2004 14:45:27 +0200) <200407040055.i640tDx17333@panix5.panix.com> <1088896371.19592.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <2465.68.126.82.218.1088896685.squirrel@webmail.io.com> <200407040055.i640tDx17333@panix5.panix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:38:00 -0000 To: Jim Kingdon From: Hans Ronne Subject: Re: Just say no to bungee paratroopers. Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 >> First, I moved it inside capture_unit (which is called from several >> places). Second, I added code for trying to enter the same cell if the >> capturing unit is unable to enter the captured unit itself. > >One interesting feature of this patch (both versions) is that entering >the captured unit uses up whatever ACP would have been needed to do >the enter action. > >In the case of the standard game, this means that an armor which >captures from a troop transport will not have an ACP left when it gets >inside the town which it captured. > >I'm not sure whether this is better or worse than the other choice, >which would be to give the enter action for free, but I thought it was >worth noting. You are abolutely right, and I think this is the correct way to do things. There are actually some freebies in the kernel code, too. One example is the ACP-less counterattack, and even counter-capture, that an attacked unit may engage in. Another, I think, is the ACP-less escape of occupants into an adjacent cell when the transport is captured. But I have always regarded these freebies as aberrations. It makes much more sense to charge the full price whenever you do something. There may be restrictions built in by the game designer, such as if the enter action requires more ACPs than the unit can possess. In that case, ACP-less entry by capture would clearly be a bug. Anyway, the fact that the captured unit is occupied immediately, and not the next turn, is in itself an advantage to the attacking side. Doing it free of charge would be too much of an advantage. What this means, of course, is that the attacker will not be able to enter the captured unit if it has used up all its ACPs for the turn. This, I think makes for a more interesting game. Situations like that are not uncommon in Civ. Hans