[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] [1.4] cleanup of proccess_*_want() (PR#1295)

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 11:19:08PM CEST, I got a letter,
> where Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> > Please excuse me for not indenting the patch with ">"...  Can't figure out 
> > how to do it.
> 
> No problem.
> 
> > ===================================================================
> > [...]
> > +        /* FIXME? We've bigger desire for land units when city walls can
> > +         * protect them (?). */
> > +        if (walls && move_type == LAND_MOVING) {
> > +          desire *= pcity->ai.wallvalue;
> > +          /* TODO: More use of POWER_FACTOR ! */
> > +          desire /= POWER_FACTOR;
> > +        }
> > 
> > Well, it's better to build defenders which will go well with existing 
> > structures, isn't it?  I think there is nothing to fix here.
> 
> IMHO we should rather increase desire for city walls when building land
> defenders.. but maybe it wouldn't work so well in the grand scheme of
> things..
> I can't see what Raahul thought that was wrong with that anymore.. ;)) He
> ellegantly skipped this when replying.. :^)


This is just simply wrong! We should be selecting units regardless of having
city walls. City walls only mater when we are on the defensive. I still haven't
decided what changes I need to make to create an offensive ai, that never ever
defends. It's not a fault with your patch.

> I'm a bit confused from this all, thus current comment is:
> 
>         /* Bonus of Citywalls can be expressed as * 3, and vulnerability is
>          * quadratic, thus we multiply it by 9. */
> 
> I hope it's correct finally :).

Greg's explanation in his email to me is far better. Use that comment instead.

Thumbs up from me. I think your patch is ready.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/