[freeciv-ai] Re: README.AI

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> --- Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> Should we stick Ross in here? Ross, do you want your name in the Doc?
> 
> > THE AI CREW
> > ===========

[..]

> > WANT CALCULATIONS
> > =================
> > 
> > Build calculations are expressed through a structure called ai_choice. 
> > This has a variable called "want", which determines how much the AI 
> > wants whatever item is pointed to by choice->type. choice->want is
> > 
> >    -199   get_a_boat
> >    < 0    an error
> >    == 0   no want, nothing to do
> >    <= 100 normal want
> >     > 100 critical want, used to requisition emergency needs
> >     > ??? probably an error (1024 is a reasonable upper bound)
> > 
> > These are ideal numbers, your mileage while travelling through the 
> > code may vary considerably.  Technology and diplomats, in particular, 
> > seem to violate these standards.
> 
> Still missing a comment.
> 
> When want exceeds 200, it is capped below that number. 

Sorry, I only replied to the comments directed towards what was written by 
me.  Besides, it's not always capped at 200.

> > THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED
> > ============================
> > 
> > * The AI difficulty levels aren't fully implemented. Either add more
> > handicaps to 'easy', or use easy diplomacy mode.
> > * AI doesn't understand when to become DEMOCRACY. Actually it doesn't 
> > evalute governments much at all.
> 
> I'd prefer to see this line.
> 
> * AI doesn't understand when to become DEMOCRACY or FUNDAMENTALIST. Actually 
> it
> doesn't evalute governments much at all.

Feel free to change it.  I didn't write it.

> > * Cities don't realize units are on their way to defend it.
> > * AI doesn't understand that some wonders are obsolete, that some 
> > wonders become obsolete, and doesn't upgrade units.
> 
> Some version of amortize for wonders is needed.
> 
> 
> > * City tile values are not cached; wastes CPU time.
> 
> Bad Greg ;). Get rid of this line.

Didn't write it.

> > * struct choice should have a priority indicator in it.  This will
> > reduce the number of "special" want values and remove the necessity to
> > * have want capped, thus reducing confusion.
> 
> Aargh. Let me restate my position. Want should work in such a way that we 
> don't
> need priority indicators. This means
> 
> Getting rid of the ability of want to reach > 100
> 
> 0-80 normal want
> 80-90 critical
> 90 buy now.
> 
> Smart, sensible and obvious. 

Now please come up with a scheme of computing such want in a consistent 
way.

> The priority scheme means a want of 40 with the
> highest priority would supercede a want of 100 with a lower priority. This is
> ugly and stupid.

It is more sensible than the present system and implementable too, which I 
cannot say about your proposal yet.

G.