Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: May 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: README.AI
Home

[freeciv-ai] Re: README.AI

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: README.AI
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:43:18 +0100 (BST)

Since Raahul edited slightly obsolete function, I merged his additions
with the newest one.  Made one change to his additions: instead of
removing "cache tiles" from TODO list altogether, I moved it to the idea
space and added a comment saying that it's crap (attributed it to Raimar).

Also, I finally figured out the attacker selection procedure, which is 
now explained in the new SELECTING MILITARY UNITS section.

The newest version attached.

Best,
G.

On Wed, 1 May 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> 
> --- Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Attached is my version with two changes. I got rid of the cache city tile
> values, and I changed the AI doesn't know about democracy to AI doesn't know
> about democracy and fundamentalism.

I found more changes than that.

> > > > * 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.
> 
> That's difficult. I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't fully

please do.


Attachment: README.AI
Description: Text document


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]