Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Clearing your backlog

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Clearing your backlog

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Clearing your backlog
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:50:18 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 01:14:47AM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Just go ahead. However I would also greatly appreciate any extra eyes
> > on the patches in the backlog. For example is the AI-railway patch a
> > good idea based on the fact that it may make it easier for an attacker
> > to capure a continent? This is a question were I have no answer yet.
> > 
> There is no good answer for this question. It's a tradeoff. The AI can be
> much better at attacking with this patch, if it has a lot of cities on
> a large landmass map, and the human player has fewer cities on the same
> continent. In large landmass scenarios this is a big win.
> There are scenarios where it can be much worse though. 3 equal size islands
> controlled by the ai. I land a big invasion force on one island, capture
> the capital and split the ai in half. Game winner. I believe this scenario
> is where the problem lies. If the ai capital and wonder cities are well
> protected, this might not be much of a problem. 
> On balance, it makes sense to allow railroads. It also makes it much easier to
> reinforce cities as well. I think that
> a) improves attack a lot
> b) mixed blessing as far as defense goes, but it is not certainly a negative.
> Anyone else want to make comments about the desirability of the ai building
> cross country networks? 
> > > I'm wondering which patches you are currently working on. Maybe I can give
> > > you a detailed review of problems areas for some patches you are not yet
> > > sure of, and help cut the backlog.
> > 
> > > Raimar, will we see CMA 2.7 any time soon?
> > 
> > Doesn't look like so.
> > 
> > > Would you accept a patch that updates the CMA 2.6 to compile against
> > > current CVS?
> > 
> > You may do this (you have to cope with the new city dialog for
> > this). However note that I will only accept the CMA after it has the
> > ability to save presets and let the user manage them. This includes
> > changes to client/attribute to handle two types of attributes:
> > server-saved and client-saved. But these have to be access through the
> > same (existing) interface. So there is a lot of work to do. And so
> > little time available.
> > 

> I was just thinking of fixing it to cope with the new city dialog. If I have
> to do all the rest as well, I think I'll go back to server side AI.

You don't have to. Any work done is work done.


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot."

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