[freeciv-ai] Re: (PR#5633) Order of AI activities.

["Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:38:26PM -0700, Jason Short wrote:
> 
>>Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
>>
>>>This was discussed over IRC and we came to an agreement that AI
>>>activities should be all performed in one place, either in the end of
>>>the turn or in the beginning.  Now I started implementing it and thought
>>>of a good reason not to do it.
>>>
>>>It has to do with urgent purchase of defenders.
>>
>>AI movement should (must) all occur in the same place.  Other AI actions 
>>(like purchasing) may be done elsewhere, but I'm not sure this will 
>>solve all possible problems (I can imagine there might be a whole class 
>>of problems similar to the purchase-of-defenders one).
> 
> 
> I think it's possible to split up some of the AI-activities.
> 
> A human has to rethink about his moved units when he sees new enemy
> units in front of his city. (Double turns)
> 
> And i think the same is true for the AI. When i land with a transport
> full of horses and the AI can't do anything after i've done that the AI
> will never have a chance to beat me. (Ok the same is true for humans
> with AI-double turns ...)

A "correct" AI implementation would have the AI's movement alternating 
with that of humans.  So when you land with a transport full of horses, 
the AI will get to react before you get a chance to move again.

> The AI should try to move its units at the begin of a round, but change
> production at the end of a round. And reacting on enemy moves after the
> enemy has moved.

Non-movement actions (production, tax rates, etc) should be doable at 
any time.

>>One thing that would solve the problems is if AI end-of-turn activities 
>>(like production) were done at the end of the AI turn, and human 
>>end-of-turn activities at the end of the human turn.  This would 
>>generalize well into an alternating-turn Freeciv.  But even then the AI 
>>should be able to make non-movement actions at any time.
> 
> 
> I think we shouldn't move far away from the concurrent movement concept.
> (But we shouldn't go to close to real-time game too)

Many times the idea of non-concurrent movement has been proposed.  I 
think it would be quite feasible (both technically and game-play-wise), 
but I don't think any of the maintainers are ready to take on such a 
project yet.

jason