#2171 closed defect (fixed)
[PATCH] Do not assume that buildings can move + AttackMove rallyPoint
Reported by: | mimo | Owned by: | ben |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Should Have | Milestone: | Alpha 15 |
Component: | UI & Simulation | Keywords: | patch |
Cc: | Patch: |
Description
When a building is selected and the CTRL key is pressed, the attack-move cursor is displayed when hovering on an ennemy unit. Here is a patch to prevent it.
Attachments (2)
Change History (8)
by , 11 years ago
Attachment: | haveUnitAI.diff added |
---|
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
What if the building is setting its rally point as an attack move order? (I don't know if it does that, but I think it's possible sane behavior)
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
sanderd17: I agree that we may have an attack possibility, but I doubt we would want a move-attack. The important point in the patch is the "move".
historic_bruno: that's exactly why this patch is needed. Presently, hovering above an ennemy with the CTRL key pressed is interpreted as a move-attack order to the building itself (which will be stopped in GuiInterface because there is no UnitAI component). The patch prevent this, thus allowing a CTRL+hovering an ennemy to be interpreted as a rallyPoint when such a code will be implemented.
by , 11 years ago
Attachment: | attackMoveRally.diff added |
---|
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
Summary: | [PATCH] Do not assume that buildings can move → [PATCH] Do not assume that buildings can move + AttackMove rallyPoint |
---|
I wanted to do the attackMove in rallyPoint in a second patch (after fixing this problem), but as there was some comments about it, here is a completed patch with the AttackMove implemented: if the AttackMove hotkey is pressed while creating the rallyPoint, an AttackMove order is given instead of the default Move order.
comment:6 by , 11 years ago
Keywords: | review removed |
---|---|
Milestone: | Backlog → Alpha 15 |
I don't know if it should be removed. Buildings should have some forced attack possibility. I think this requires more discussion.