Update of patch #5367 (project freeciv):
Status: None => Ready For Test
Assigned to: pepeto => jtn
Follow-up Comment #2:
Darn, I wrote this patch before noticing that pepeto had taken the ticket.
pepeto, feel free to steal it back for further work.
>From the comments, these are the new criteria as of this patch (2, 5, and 6
are my new conditions):
0 Transports which have orders, or are on transports with orders, are less
preferable to transport stacks without orders (to avoid loading on units that
are just passing through); else
0 Transports which are idle are preferable (giving players some control over
loading) -- this does not check transports of transports; else
0 Transports from which the cargo could unload at any time are preferable to
those where the cargo can only disembark in cities/bases; else
0 Transports which are less deeply nested are preferable; else
0 Transport stacks where the outermost transport has more moves left are
preferable (if we're loading now, presumably it's the outermost transport
that's about to move); else
0 Direct transports with more moves left are preferable.
Of these (2) might be the most controversial. I thought it was worth giving
users control over which transport was chosen (as I said in patch #4982, but I
was wrong that it was already possible). Note that this doesn't stop automatic
pathfinding using sentried pontoon bridges etc.
Also: I think that as of patch #4982, the lexicographic ordering was not as
intended; depending on the order of the units on the tile, I think depth might
trump has_orders, which I don't think was intended.
Attached patch also fixes this, but the code is quite ugly. I couldn't think
of a nice idiomatic way to express this kind of comparison in C.
(file #22666, file #22667)
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: trunk-choose-transport-3.patch Size:4 KB
File name: S2_5-choose-transport-3.patch Size:4 KB
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list