[freeciv-ai] Re: coreai: ai_new_spend_gold() (new version)

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Per,

I didn't read the original code in detail: it frightened me :(

But your code makes sense.  Few comments:

1. It seems that the value assigned to upgrade_limit conflicts with how it 
is used in the upgrade_units routine.

2. The numbers 8 and 25 look like good candidates for expansionist
behaviour variables.  Maybe you should make them at least defines, for the
time being.

3. Didn't notice anything being done to triremes...

4. Maybe you can introduce LOG_UPGRADING define to log all upgrade-related 
issues.  I'd expect some buggy behaviour (usual thing), so we could catch 
bugs easier.

Sorry if my commnets lack depth...

G.



On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Per I. Mathisen wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Jordi Negrevernis i Font wrote:
> > >- The AI will no longer raise taxes to buy wonders and buildings.
> > >
> >   Why not? If you are competing for Adam Smith you want it!
> 
> Note that it may still buy it, it will just not raise its taxes to get it.
> It is too easy to fool it into "perpetual taxmen mode" if we do that.
> 
> The previous version capped gold expenditure on wonders at 75 gold. This
> artificial limitation has been removed in the new version attached.
> 
> Also, a bad bug that would stop not-most-wanted cities from buying
> anything has been fixed, the cap on spending for non-danger has been
> lowered and we will more easily spend money on upgrades.
> 
> Finally, generalised the trireme upgrade code and fixed a bug whereas a
> unit attempted to walk through an AI city and ended up with zero movement
> inside the city on its way, and was disbanded because the city didn't like
> it.
> 
> Oh, and fixed bug in upgrade code... which I rewrote to generalise the
> trireme upgrade handling. Now much nicer.
> 
> > >- I believe I have fixed the "AI will get stuck in taxmen mode" problem.
> > >
> >   There is another "AI will get stuck in the luxurymen mode
> > eventhought there is no population growth.
> 
> Yep, but that is in different part of the code, though.
> 
> Yours
> Per
>