Re: Olympia: Coordination of movement

From: rsocia@renaissance.cray.com (Rick Socia)

Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1992 13:47:55 +0000

In article <1992Jun5.160936.10423@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta) writes:
|> eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar) writes:
|> > 	What effect do the activities of stacked units have when the head of
|> > the stack executes a move order.  Say I have a stack of two units (X and Y:
|> > X on top).  Y executes the order work 10.  After two days X executes a move
|> > north order (attempting to move the entire stack).  Does Y stop working or
|> > does Y just suspend work until the stack settles down in a new location?
|>
|> Y's work order gets killed.  In the past, Y would lose the wages for
|> the two days, but this is no longer the case.
|>
|> It would be nicer to just suspend orders during movement rather than
|> kill them.

Wouldn't the WAIT LOC #XXX be a good line to use before you start work?  I
guess I am about to find out because I have a stack that is about to move,
and I issued the WAIT LOC #XXX for each entity before the WORK.  I also had
a SET O IDLE "YYYYYY" set for each entity before the wait.  Does this sound
like a good order sequence?

References

Olympia: Coordination of movement
eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Fri, 05 Jun 1992 15:07:53 +0000
Re: Olympia: Coordination of movement
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 05 Jun 1992 16:09:36 +0000

Referenced By

Olympia: Coordination of movement
eebonar@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu (Dave Bonar)
Fri, 05 Jun 1992 15:07:53 +0000
Re: Olympia: Coordination of movement
skrenta@cbnewsg.att.com (Rich Skrenta)
Fri, 05 Jun 1992 16:09:36 +0000