This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Feature Request: Advance Prohibits Advance
- From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>
- To: Elijah Meeks <elijahmeeks at yahoo dot com>
- Cc: Xconq list <xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:11:33 -0600
- Subject: Re: Feature Request: Advance Prohibits Advance
- References: <20040905164141.65066.qmail@web13124.mail.yahoo.com>
Elijah Meeks wrote:
1) It's more complicated. Not having seen the code, I
don't know how much, but a simple shut-off switch
would, I think be straightforward.
You are possibly right in this regard. I'll think some more about it.
It would also
allow the game designer to simulate much of what
you're talking about, he'd just have to create a few
more techs, so that you're getting the same tech, only
cheaper,
I see. So are you going to race Lincoln to 10000 advances to win an
additional donut? :-)
2) The AI doesn't choose research very well. Really,
this is for the AI, because a player will probably
focus, anyway, while the AI will choose its research
haphazardly and I wouldn't be surprised to see it
short-circuiting by researching an almost-infinite-rp
tech.
Ah ha. Trying to make the AI look like it has a brain? That is also the
mark of a seasoned Xconq developer.
Of course, if I'm wrong about these points, which is a
decent possibility given my lack of familiarity with
the research or AI code, then by all means I'd prefer
a more featured implementation.
No. I think you made valid points. You are the one actually using
advances. Like I said, I have barely touched the stuff. I'll think some
more about it.
But, right now, I am about to add support for prefix args to the SDL
interface.
Eric