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: Freeciv-ai <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 22:49:55 +0200 (MEST)

On Tue, 7 May 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > If I'm the one finally implementing AI diplomacy, I won't allow my code to
> > be sullied by such idiocy. To allow buildings to influence AI players and
> > AI players only, is crap. I'd be glad to see those go.
> If you're the only one? I don't see any other working implementations. Let me
> ask you to change your mind. Civ II was originally a single player game only
> whereas Freeciv is multiplayer. In a single player game, it makes sense to 
> have
> wonders that can affect the AI.
> If I ever want to achieve 100% Civ 2 compatibility, I'll need those effects.
> Toss me a bone here Per.

Ok. If you really want to implement lame AIs, be my guest ;)

> Aargh! My worst Civ II playing memories consist of the senate overriding my
> bloodthirsty desires. If you want this annoying misfeature, people will have
> to demand it. I intend to quietly ignore it in the hopes that it will go away.
> I certainly don't see anyone wanting it.

The Senate was mostly annoying, yes. But without, we should try to balance
Republic and Democracy in another way, because they are too powerful
(comparatively) as is.

> > 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.

Being fixed.

> 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.

It has its weaknesses.

> 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 am in doubt how much extra, needed flexibility this approach will give.
To convince me you will need to post an example ruleset or something (like
a list of sensible units that cannot easily be created with flags) that
shows me why I am wrong.

> Something that should be added as Todo in the AI doc, Per. Well, AI does
> apparently use ports. I seem to have come across a function
> find_nearest_friendly_port. I haven't the slightest idea if this is ever used.
> Can anyone confirm/deny?

Confirm. When an AI naval vessel does not find a target, it bolts back to
nearest allied port where it stays until a target can be found. It does
not seek out a port to heal, however.


"There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary
and those who don't."

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