Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: for discussion: ics revisited

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: for discussion: ics revisited

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Ben Webb <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: for discussion: ics revisited
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:25:24 +0000 (GMT)

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Ben Webb wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:43:25PM +0000, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > It's just a ruleset.  THis is the kind of thing rulesets were meant to do.
> > > We can set up some public servers to get it playtested.
> > 
> > First, Freeciv has to be forced to understand rulesets, see earlier Ben's 
> > message and set_city_science_bonus (why "set" and not "get", by the way?) 
> > in
> >
>       Well, it does "get" the bonus from the city's list of buildings,
> but then it "set"s pcity->science_bonus, so it's not that crazy a name.

yes, didn't notice that :(

> Anyway, my impr-gen patch at <blatant plug></blatant
> plug> removes this function (and friends) entirely. The AI still doesn't
> understand these effects though, as there's hard-coded behaviour in
> aicity.c and advdomestic.c, so it's not "perfect" just yet...

As I said earlier, generalizing library effects for the AI is a piece of
cake.  Provided the library only increases research by N%, and not, say,
increases birth rate in the city (oh, the dim lights of the libraries) or
such.  I also think that implementing generalized city improvements in
advdomestic.c shouldn't be too hard and will make the code structure
better.  Proveded, that is, that the set of effects is limited.

And the range too: the wonders with global effects are very hard to 
appraise, as you mentioned earlier.

Maybe, after I teach AI to fly well, we can have a look at AI and 


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