Re: Bugs in Bellum Aeternum

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

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