Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: May 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support

[freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Freeciv-ai <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 17:32:42 +0200
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 08:13:18AM -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > I'm only worried it might get a little too complicated. The flags code is
> > simple to understand, simple to code and simple to extend. The gen. impr.
> > approach is none of the above. But this is another discussion.
> Simple to extend? *Bullshit* cough. I seem to remember two people who've
> already run hard into Raimar's decision that the current no of flags + 2 was
> enough.

We already agreed that it has to be extended.

> And simple to understand: Have you read combat.c? The convulutions I had to go
> through to support Aegis properly etc is fast reaching the point where the
> flags system cannot cope.
> And worst of all, the flags system is only open to two coders, Per and myself.
> Have you seen anyone else send in patches? The AC approach is better. Moving
> stuff into rulesets is the obvious and smart approach.

I don't have hard numbers but I have the feeling that this will eat a
lot of CPU.

Ben: If I understood this correctly you can't give numbers how much
gen-impr affects an autogame because the AI hasn't been adopted?!


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Python is executable pseudocode. Perl is executable line noise"
    -- Bruce Eckel

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