Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: AI strategy
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: AI strategy

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: AI strategy
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 04:20:20 -0800 (PST)

--- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
> > > > There is no reason a complete client side AI could not be built.
> Raimar?
> > > 
> > > (uhuh double negation). I see no general problems building a complete
> > > client side AI. Smaller problems include cheating (how to allow it),
> > > extra bandwidth usage and extra complexity (spawning civbot).
> > > 
> > >   Raimar
> > 
> > Allowing cheating is dangerous. All of a sudden we would return to the bad
> old days of players using packet sniffers. And I am not going to implement
our
> own > encryption standard.
> 
> If such a cheating flag is set it is broadcasted to all players. I
> don't see a problem here.
>

I read this statement. I'm not sure I know what you are driving at here.
It's not a problem that the normal players can find out stuff like where
all enemy units are located? If we implement cheating in ais, there's bound
to be an upsurge in hacks. 
 
> > The extra bandwidth issue is the only really big problem.  Ideas?
> 
> It isn't a problem for the civbot scenarios.
> 
> > I've got the obvious compression of packets applying those patches
> > like 
> 
> > short_worklist(have they been reviewed yet?)
> 
> No. I didn't got any comment.
> 

Can you post the newer versions of the patch if they exist? I'll review it.
I didn't comment before because your patch would take lots of testing to make
sure no bugs crop up.

> > A smarter client - keeps some state info instead of all server
> > side. This could be more hassle than it is worth.
> 
> For bandwidth saving it is best to do such a "do only send info if is
> has really changed" solution. Maybe a compression can also be
> used. With such code in place I think that a cheating client will not
> need much more bandwidth than now (this is only a guess).
> 

Do you want to thrown some nos around? The client side AI will need at a
minimum

for N = no of ai players

N * initial maps
N * initial tech_tree and change in tech_tree
N * unit change in pos and/or enemy unit within visual range

I'm sure there is other stuff I missed. What do you think will be an approx 
figure?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com


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