[freeciv-ai] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC][Patch] AI can fly v2 (fwd)

[<per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> I'm scribed. I know you are, and so is Raimar. Who's left?

I'm here.

> I don't want omniscient AI's. I thought the plan was to move away from that.

Sure, but right now we don't have analyzing/profiling code to go with a
non-omniscient AI. The AI is stupid and players are complaining the 'hard'
AI is not hard enough, so let us do what we can to make them suffer, ok?

> > a possibility would be to give the ai a second map and game struct,
> > which houses educated guesses, about troop concentrations in enemy
> > cities for example. Another example would be seeing an enemy unit coming
> > out of unknown territory and then assigning probabilities about the
> > terrain type (!ocean) to the unknown tiles.

My idea is a little less ambitions, which is simply to put an ai hook
inside the server attack code, which records losses due to various types
of units. This profiling data can be used to estimate better the desire
for city walls, SAM, coastal, antiair, techs, high defense vs high
movement, etc..

Also I keep thinking that the client side AI should iterate through all
the enemy units it can see every turn, and record them. Then amortize
these memories somehow every turn, so that older memories are less
important than more recent. This is then used to estimate what kind of
units we need to combat the enemy.

Sorry, Greg, just ideas yet, no code...

> I hate the aifuzz idea.

<AOL> Me too. </AOL>

> > whatever it is, the its_time_to_invade() function should be on the
> > todo list.

I think it is just some calculations that are screwed up somewhere. Don't
know where, though.

Yours,
Per

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
 -- Sir John Harrington (1561-1612)