[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: ai passive diplomacy 6 (PR#1277)

[Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> you?

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?

BB
MM

-- 
Got a website? Get 10,000+ hits a day FREE...
http://makemoney.knotwork.com/10000hits/