[Freeciv-Dev] Re: CSS was: Re: auto settlers rework

[Christian Knoke <ChrisK@xxxxxxxx>]

[On strategies for Settler Management Agents]

When you are taking these considerations, you get a strong impression 
that things are in fact even more complicated than this.

Examples:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 01:14:33PM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 04:06:20AM -0500, Jason Short wrote:
> > Raimar Falke wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:05:10PM -0500, Ashley Penney wrote:
> > > 
[...]
> > > The only way AFAIK is to increase the time horizon of the
> > > calculation. The current server auto-settler code is based on 24 turns
> > > (the famous MORT constant). This means that the action which would
> > > yield the most benefit in the next 24 turns is considered.

The time horizon is not linear. Things I can achieve (points I can get)
earlier in the game are more valueable than things I get later.

> > > Example:
[...]
> > > So the total benefit of the second will increase with a larger time
> > > horizon.

Maybe you don't live long enough to encounter this. (e.g. you are under
attack)


[...]
> > It also doesn't account for the goodness of building a 
> > city (although it could try, if we can somehow assign a "benefit" value 
> > to the city).
> 
> The current SMA code has this. It will build cities like mad. It is
> just the best choice if you have the tiles available. Even if you
> account the shields you loss if you disband the settler.

Important point. Whether it's a good thing to build cities depends a lot,
e.g. on you overall strategy (ICS or not), the ability to defend your
territory, the distance of your cities a.s.o.


> > Finally, it doesn't account for different resources having different
> > values; everything is heaped into one "benefit" value (although this
> > could be changed).
> 
> The user of the the current SMA has to provide weights for this.

Well, which weights? What kind of ressources are important can change,
e.g. when your cities grow, or when you're getting more/less settlers,
or whether you concentrate on research or production.


> > It is also extraordinarily difficult to account for dependencies among 
> > improvements.  For instance, you have to do primary irrigation before 
[...]
> Managing the settlers as a whole may get better results. But I see an
> drastic increase in CPU time.

Some cities may want food, others shields. So 2 settlers are doing the work,
instead of the (neighbouring) cities just exchange a (used) grass tile with 
a (used) mined hill tile? >:->  Interaction with the CMA is requiered here.


Conclusions:

Agents will change the gameplay. This is not bad. But maybe they reduce
the number of strategies/ways to play a game, because they are based
on strategic implications (which may or may not be true). 

They need to interact with each other. 

The agents do the work, but the user does the politics.

What I want to suggest is to embed the agents into some sort of 
client side scripting (CSS). 

CSS could give the above goals.

CSS can move the agent developement from the shoulders of few to the
shoulders of many (users!)

CSS can be a way to achieve client side AI. 

CSS is a step forward to client side translation, which is a good thing,
too.


Christian (who is dreaming of a test-bed for AI development)

-- 
* Christian Knoke                           +49 4852 92248 *
* D-25541 Brunsbuettel                  Wurtleutetweute 49 *
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.