Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: April 2003:
[freeciv-ai] The case for a client AI [was: omniscience problem]

[freeciv-ai] The case for a client AI [was: omniscience problem]

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] The case for a client AI [was: omniscience problem]
From: Mike Kaufman <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:41:00 -0500

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 05:15:15PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> In all non-domestic issues. Everything that has to do with enemy units or
> cities or players. Even the AI diplomacy patch makes much use of
> omniscience.

Only because you wrote it that way... but you're missing the point. Give
each ai player its own game struct and what would happen? In the short
term, I agree that the ai may not work properly, and certainly will not be
as "intelligent" (if only because it can't peek any more)

> That's not what I hear. People say the AI is either too hard or too easy
> (so they _think_ it cheats). I agree it shouldn't cheat the rules, as in
> revolution in one turn, any tax rates whenever and change production at
> will, but omniscience is another thing altogether.

oh, you're proposing something that doesn't cheat the rules? Like placing
workers on unknown tiles, or making tiles known at whim? The others you
mention are no more overt than these.
> Turning the AI into something else that doesn't use omniscience is a
> really major undertaking, and to be honest I really can't see what we gain
> from it. Time is better spent making the 'hard' AI harder, making it
> understand the rules better, and making it able to run with modpacks.

Think of 'not omniscient' as the first but large step toward a client ai.
Do I need to expound on the obvious advantages of such an AI? I think that
it's perfectly clear in the pitfights you're fond of.


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