Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: July 2003:
[freeciv-ai] Re: New CM in server patch (PR#4335)

[freeciv-ai] Re: New CM in server patch (PR#4335)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: New CM in server patch (PR#4335)
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko" <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:57:26 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Per I. Mathisen wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > > This is just a refresh of the patch after the new tax code went in.
> ...
> > Three questions:
> >
> > 1. Isn't AI getting a dedicated auto_arrange_workers. After all, it
> > might want to give different weights.
> Right. Eventually I'd like to use the aidata weights for the AI.
> > 2. I would like to see more stages in emergency resolution. Well, at
> > least one more:
> > +  cmp.minimal_surplus[FOOD] = pcity->food_stock;
> > +  cmp.minimal_surplus[SHIELD] = pcity->shield_stock;
> I don't quite see what you are attempting to do here, or how this can
> work. 

Err, I meant

+  cmp.minimal_surplus[FOOD] = - pcity->food_stock;
+  cmp.minimal_surplus[SHIELD] = - pcity->shield_stock;

Meaning "we allow negative production/food, but avoid loss of 

> > Also, AI might want to keep city in disorder for a turn or so, but I guess
> > this is a finer control we don't want to engage in now.
> Well, disorder means no production...

But no units are disbanded and population isn't lost.

> > 3. As far as I can see, the weights you give will apply to players by
> > default. And also human players' cities will go starving rather than be
> > in disorder. This will change the gameplay quite a bit! Is it so, and
> > if it is, can it be avoided?
> Good point. We should definitely split AI and human player worker
> allocations. Should I make a new patch, or do you want to have a go at it?

No, you do it :)


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