[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: ai passive diplomacy 6 (PR#1277)
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> My initial objections were made on a wrong basis: I assumed that one AI
> doesn't ask other AIs units to attack too therefore they cannot be counted
> as reinforcements.
> While first part is certainly true, I forgot another fact: AI doesn't
> actually tell it's own units to attack the same target. Still it sort of
> works... sometimes...
> The only issue I have with this is a more fundamental question: "Is your
> ally's good good for you?". In other words, if you waste 5 units killing
> defenders in a city and then your ally actually marches in, is it good for
Is it good for the city? The city's people? Does "was it good for you too"
simply mean "has your number of happy population units increased" ?
> When the alliances are as solid as rock (in passive diplomacy), the answer
> is yes. But if alliances break from time to time, you should still have
> some reservations...
Backups, yes. Reservations, hmmm, still working on reservation systems
(predestination) versus free will. See divination, astrology, psychic...
> > this is the right thing to do, and I believe the AIvsAI battles I've
> > watched bears this out. If you agree with Greg that this is bad, please
> > let me know and I'll take it out, or you can just leave it out and commit.
> > But please, there is no reason to delay cvs inclusion on this patch. It
> > just makes things difficult as other patches rely on it.
> hehehe, that's quite a plea ;)
Backed by a cohort of (pumpkin? lettuce? etc? Civil)patch followers.
Do we listen to the civ ones or only the mil ones?
Got a website? Get 10,000+ hits a day FREE...