[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Comments on CMA 2.6

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 09:07:26PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2001 18:12 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:50:04PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2001 14:15 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:41:28PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > > > Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2001 23:28 schrieb Raimar Falke:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 10:51:45PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > > > > > For that case, I suggested a 0 (zero) weight. Everything
> > > > > > > considered as not important can have a 0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Technically the core CMA needs non-zero weights. However the
> > > > > > interface doesn't have to use these weights. It may map them
> > > > > > to other using a different scale of example.
> > > > >
> > > > > The CMA core should have the ability of ignoring a sort of
> > > > > production at all. E.g. in my games a food surplus is often
> > > > > wasted *at* *all*. Is a 0.01 weight possible?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Just multiply all weights by 100. So you have core weights
> > > > (which are ints and always >1) and floating point interface
> > > > weights.
> > >
> > > Not the interface, the core. Is the core able to ignore e.g. food
> > > at all in the maximize calculation?
> >
> > No why should it? Which one should CMA use if you have two
> > combinations which only differ in food. It chooses the one with the
> > bigger food value. 
> 
> You won't like the answer: It should choose the one with the lower
> value and leave the better tile for another city.

I have never thought about this. A very good argument. I will probably
implement a weight of 0.

> > > > > Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 19:39 schrieb Daniel L Speyer:
> > > > > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Why not: (negative, 0, positive) three possibilities,
> > > > > > > > > where positive is just (+1).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No. You may need +2 or +3 to finish your unit in n turns.
> > > > > > > > So a slider is still needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, but really really seldom. You'd rather buy. Too much
> > > > > > > hassle with the agent. In high production phases, you would
> > > > > > > need to set +30 e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do this sort of thing very often.  If I'm using potentially
> > > > > > high-prod cities where I cant afford to buy, or if I want
> > > > > > enough armor or cruisers for a major assault some time in the
> > > > > > next ten turns.  I would definitely want CMA to support this
> > > > > > sort of strategy.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if Daniel and others really need this - it means changing
> > > > > CMA's setting for a single turn - why not take the needed
> > > > > shields from the city info itself? That means that the CMA will
> > > > > pass control the very round after, but I think that is
> > > > > intended. So:
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >---- -
> > > > >
> > > > > Food:   X allow loss   X no loss   X surplus
> > > > >
> > > > > Prod:   X allow loss   X no loss   X finish current
> > > >
> > > > So "finish current"=shield_stock-cost?!
> > >
> > > I don't know. "finish current" == The CMA shall guarantee that the
> > > city produces at least so many shields that it can finish the
> > > current production in the next round.
> >
> > And what happens if the city can produce this many shields?
> 
> Same thing as always: the CMA passes control to the user. But
> you will see it in the CMA window before.

Ok.

> > > > > Gold:   X allow loss   X no loss
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >---- -
> > > > >
> > > > > For the right side sliders I fancy a slider with values n of
> > > > > (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) mapped according weight = e ^ (( n - 1) / 2)
> > > > > to (0, 1, 1.6, 2.7, 4.5, 7.4).
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > According to my previuos posts: 0 is to ignore a stat, 1 is the
> > > base factor for other stats, 7.4 is a good approximation to the
> > > maximum ratio probably ever needed to weight a very important stat
> > > over other stats (e.g. production vs. gold when a bomber is being
> > > produced), and 1.6, 2.7, and 4.5 are the steps inbetween, giving a
> > > total of 6 steps which gives reasonable control and is still handy.
> > > pfhhh
> >
> > Ok. But why e ^ (( n - 1) / 2) and not just plain linear? Do you have
> > any deeper knowledge? Or do you just feel that this is better?
> 
> A ratio 2:3 will give you the same result as 3:4 or 4:5, if all other
> stats are zero. I think this is more transparent for the player.

I don't think so. In my solution 2:3 would yield the same as 4:6 or
6:9. Does anybody have a third opinion?

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Two OS engineers facing a petri net chart:
        "dead lock in four moves!"