This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Screwy UI Resupply Code
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Peter Garrone <pgarrone at acay dot com dot au>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:57:54 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Screwy UI Resupply Code
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Peter Garrone wrote:
> > I disagree. As Jim points out, there are times where manual
> > give/take is still useful. This functionality should continue to
> > be available, even if much of it can be automated in many cases.
>
> Of course it is useful. But it is too tedious. If it is disabled, then
> no one can do it, and it is fair for all.
*Sigh* Your argument resembles various societal and legal trends
here in the US. Placing a strange notion of "fairness" before
"freedom"....
Actually, you are starting to me remind of the "Handicapper
General" in a Kurt Vonnegut short story, "Harrison Bergeron", that
the teacher made us read in freshman lit in high school.
If resupply is largely automated, then I fail to see how it can be
tedious. And the fact that some people may choose a little tedium
to give themselves an advantage is, __how shall I say it, normal
and reasonable.
> The image that leaps into my mind is a lot of units moving around
> stealing fuel off each other. I dont know where you are going here.
I think it is reasonable to not receive donations from mobile
units. This avoids the "Fighter takes fuel from Bomber, then
Bomber needs fuel so it takes it from Fighter" scenario that we
were presented with earlier.
> I dont think real navy vessels in general can resupply each other with fuel.
With WWII era vessels, you are wrong. With modern ones, I don't
know. I have seen photos of a destroyer refueling a sub at sea, a
carrier refueling a destroyer at sea, and, of course,
tankers/oilers/supply ships refueling various vessels at sea. It's
a fact.
> Obviously they are at a
> combat disadvantage while doing so as well. So a realistic situation
> would be to have the unit occupy the refueler, and to have a combat
> disadvantage.
Having a Carrier _enter_ a Tanker is realistic?! C'mon Peter....
> also from the point of software, because there is one set of software to
> impose some constraints, and another set to get around it.
This was my original point, and I am suggesting that we remedy
that situation. But, not by making it disappear....
Eric