[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC][Patch] AI can fly v2 (fwd)

[<per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> what do you propose as a measure of "good chance of winning".
>
> Examples:
> 1. you put 1$ on red and it wins with prob 1/2 and you get back your 1$
> plus 0.5$.  Is it good?  Do you play?
> 2. you put 1$ on something that wins with prob 0.75 and you get back your
> 1$ plus 0.3$.  It this good?
> 3. you put 1$ on number 13 which wins with prob 1/32 and you get back you
> 1$ plus 100$.  Is this any good?

None of those are good. We must also know if we can afford to lose $1.

I propose that we use the "minimax" principle: Assume worst case scenario
- if we cannot afford to lose, don't do it. Some things to look for: Is
the unit directly threatening a city? We cannot afford to lose the city,
so attack no matter the odds. Are we outproducing the enemy? Take greater
risks - we can afford more losses. (Or perhaps rather, somehow figure out
if we are on the defensive, if we are not omniscient.) Are we on the
defensive or being outproduced? Take less chances. Etc.

> > But this should probably be fixed later along with the rest of the code.
>
> If we agree on a better concept than kill_desire equation.

I haven't looked much at it, yet, and won't for a while. Sorry.

> 1. This discussion probably belongs to freeciv-ai.  Are we subscribed
> automatically or we do it ourselves?

Do it yourself. Send "subscribe freeciv-ai" in the body of a message to
"listar@xxxxxxxxxxx".

> 2. Could you also explain the new man Adam that he can get the code from
> freeciv-test which needs testing and quality review?

Ok, but after my updating frenzy yesterday, it only contains conndlg. Not
much to test yet.

Yours,
Per

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
 -- Sir John Harrington (1561-1612)