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

["Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:33 AM 02/04/16 -0500, Tony Stuckey wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:32:39PM -0400, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
>> I've been playing with advdomestic.c. This manager computes unit counts
>> of various types, and instead of building caravans at priority 1, first
>> builds units (even military ones) to bring quotas up to minimum levels.
>> 
>> I found that this really helps pacificist AIs maintain a few roaming
>> patrol units and such so they have some defence against surprise attacks
>> and barbarians. It also promotes a more warlike game as free units tend
>> to go off and pick fights which starts up the advmilitary() machine.
>> 
>> I would suggest that the quota system be a good thing to expand on.
>
>       It is pretty intellectually appealing.
>       I keep looking at principles like
>       "Each city should have at least one defensive unit"

This has been pretty much hammered in, both with advmilitary() and
by making sure you don't build settlers or caravans with no home
defense in advdomestic. Advmilitary() builds more units as the
civ-size grows, and after the first the average starts shifting to 
attackers. Advdomestic just makes sure the totals are high enough
civ-wide to meet minimum budgets when spare resource is at hand.

>       "Border cities should have one offensive unit on autoattack"

Localizing FIELDUNITs is tricky. For the most part they chase prey, or
on explore head straight outwards. I tweaked the recent explorer code
to go home and stock up on supplies periodically, just to add a bit
more localization to roaming units.

The worst were triemes that did polar Magellans, then started to make 
this a regular trade cycle - without the trade cargo of course :-)

And there is nothing worse than knowing the far side of the world in
excrutiating detail while there are big black holes around your
capital. Or having military superiority, but off in left field when
the homeland is invaded.

>       etc and trying them out in various situations.  "Keep some fast
>patrol units" is one that I hadn't actually thought of, at least before
>aircraft become viable.
>
>       The very early game is all fast exploration units.  Once you make
>contact with another Civilization or barbarians, you kick in some of the
>"I'm in danger!" code.

Advmiltary danger really isn't civ-wide enough. 

If I were to expand on the quotas philosophy, I would define minimum
thresholds for various unit classes. These would be multiplied by some
sort of global average danger factor that boosted chances of wanting 
military units of particular types civ-wide, and not just near the 
local fires. Atrocities like killing settlers or caravans would add
significantly to these running factors. This is basically the homeland
defense budget - modest but more or less balanced and stabilizing.

A second dimension to this is to change the relative weights or scale
factors for different civ personalities. Thus even under attack some 
would not respond with radically increased military, while others 
would generate military in large numbers at first sight in true 
xenophobic fashion.

Note you really only have to play with the mobile unit side, as what
I find is that without provocation, and under rapid growth there is
almost no desire for military or unit development in the want choices.

You get rapid growth if you stop make_scientists_taxmen() from elvising
every non-critical and sometimes many critical workers. The current
game is weighted heavily at every opportunity towards smallpox, but
if you release these weights it generally flops to the other extreme
of utopian development pattern.

Mobile units (FIELDUNITs) stir the pot and if advmilitary() gets 
panicked enough will flip a civ to fullscale war mode for quite a 
period as excess military units tend to find new wars to fight with
the danger factors on all sides being exponential.

>-- 
>Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>'Finally, the Navy stated that [...] "However, use of the area as a live
>fire range has the beneficial effect of reducing the negative impacts of
>human intrusion."' - Center For Biological Diversity v Pirie and Rumsfeld