[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] [1.1] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295)]
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Dear diary, on Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 09:46:21PM CET, I got a letter,
where "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > so, now I'm trying my luck with getting something slightly larger and more
> > complicated into CVS - this cleanup cleans
> > proccess_(defender|attacker)_want()
> > functions, corrects TODO appropriatelly, and renames pcity->ai.(f|a) into
> > something more descriptive. Behaviour is not changed (autogames are same).
>
> One behaviour that should be changed is the AI's inclination to build way
> too many city walls and coastal fortresses, while leaving its cities
> without a single defender when it thinks they are out of danger. Too many
> times I've seen these cities invaded and taken over by barbarians.
Post a patch on the top of this ;). Oh well, or it won't be probably so hard to
fix.. but I'm not sure if the problem lies here or in assess_danger() or in...
But no behaviour changes in this patch, please.
> > bool walls = city_got_citywalls(pcity);
>
> > + if (walls && move_type == LAND_MOVING) {
> > + desire *= pcity->ai.wallvalue;
> > + desire /= 10;
> > + }
>
> > + if (move_type == LAND_MOVING) {
> > + desire *= pcity->ai.wallvalue;
> > + desire /= 10;
> > + }
>
> Just curious: Why does the AI consider city walls here?
/* XXX? We've bigger desire for land units when city walls can
* protect them (?). */
(will be in next version of the patch)
But honestly, I've no clue about that ;). If someone has a better idea than me,
please speak up.
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
* elinks maintainer * IPv6 guy (XS26 co-coordinator)
* IRCnet operator * FreeCiv AI hacker
.
"If you have acquired knowledge, what do you lack?
If you lack knowledge, what have you acquired?"
Lev. R. 1:6
.
Public PGP key && geekcode && homepage: http://pasky.ji.cz/~pasky/
|
|