On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:11:55 +0200 win...@genial.ms wrote: > > Von: "William Astle" <l...@l-w.ca> > > There is one thing that seems less than ideal, but I'm not sure that the > > current behaviour is necessarily wrong. When a unit does not have > > sufficient movement points to enter a tile, it switches to the skip > > state but remains active. I'm not sure what the best solution for that > > is. It may be that the current behaviour is the right thing. I wonder if > > it shouldn't move on to the next available unit in that case. > > That will fix itself as soon as PF#30 is implemented: > https://sourceforge.net/p/freecol/pending-features-for-freecol/30/
I am still hesitant over PF#30, and ideally would like more confirmation. There are two proposed mechanisms, of which I *much* prefer your suggestion, which is easy to understand and to implement, while the other is potentially confusing and needs save format changes. I recommend we finish other PFs first. The "skipped but active" units are indeed a special case. There are a couple of places where this trick is used within the *client* to signify some reason the unit can not proceed. However it is in the old "skipped does not really mean skipped" state, in that the state has *not* been propagated to the server, and as soon as the unit is updated for whatever reason it will drop back to the default state. This is indeed not ideal, so I will have a look at the use cases and see if something better is possible. Cheers, Mike Pope
pgp_ZpS7vLo2d.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Freecol-developers mailing list Freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers
