[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH2] Re: AI questions

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:48:00PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > >    for (id = 0; id < game.num_impr_types; id++) {
> > >      /* selling walls to buy defenders is counterproductive -- Syela */
> > > -    if (can_sell_building(pcity, id) && id != B_CITY) {
> > > +    /* Selling palace too. Virtually selling of every building with
> > > +     * original upkeep 0. We can't exempt all buildings with real
> > > +     * upkeep 0 because e.g. B_ASMITHS. --pasky */
> > > +    if (can_sell_building(pcity, id) && improvement_types[i].upkeep) {
> > 
> > This is such a place where more then just the change is required. Yes I 
> > would
> > agree that the change is reasonable at first sight. However you have to
> > understand it. So the question is which improvements make
> > "can_sell_building(pcity, id) && improvement_types[i].upkeep" true and 
> > aren't
> > city walls or the palace. This would be one extra check and a freelog and a
> > test run. However you have to keep in mind that can_sell_building depends on
> > the city.
> Thanks for hints. Anyway, what we have ruleset files for? I checked that in
> default/buildings.ruleset, and only city walls, palace, space improvements,
> coinage and wonders have upkeep 0.
> 
> > So this becames:
> > 
> >    for (id = 0; id < game.num_impr_types; id++) {
> >      if((!is_wonder(id)) && improvement_types[id].upkeep)
>       if((can_sell_building(pcity, id) && improvement_types[id].upkeep)

> /* rather? We have to check also if it's even already built ;) */

This was just test code to get an idea what effect your change would
have.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Just because you put a flag on the moon doesn't make it yours, it just
  puts a hole in the moon."