[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [RFC] Path finding interface #9

[Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 08:07:17PM +0100, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> Raimar,
> 
> 
> On Tue, 28 May 2002, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 28 May 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > 
> > > Is it true:
> > >  - if we remove the is_position_safe and let the trireme issue out
> > >  that the best path is independent of the choose policy (TC_MINIMUM,
> > >  TC_AVERAGE, TC_MAXIMUM)?
> > 
> > no: you have 6 moves/turn, choose between these 3-segment paths:
> > (a) 5-6-5
> > (b) 6-6-2
> > (c) 5-2-6
> > 
> > MINIMUM will go for (a)
> > MAXIMUM will go for (b)
> > AVERAGE will go for (c)
> 
> Personally I see no sense in these 
>       turn_cost_factor, move_cost_factor.
> Why would you ever need such clumsy and complicated function as
>       turn_cost_factor * turns_needed 
>       + move_cost_factor * (move_rate - moves_left)
>       + sum(basic_move_cost * PF_BMC_FACTOR + extra_cost) ???
> 
> In my opinion 
>       move_points_spent + sum(extra_cost)
> is enough, if move_points_spent is calculated according to one of the 
> 3 models: MIN, MAX and AVE.
> 
> If you disagree, please give examples.

Suppose you have two paths. The one is short and dangerous (higher
extra_cost) and the other is long but not so dangerous (lower
extra_cost). You than need a method to trade danger against extra time
for the path. As we have seen BMC isn't enough to capture the length
of a path.

Suppose you have five values for danger than you need to express
something like: every tile where the danger is one step higher I will
take another path which takes me 0.2 turns longer to arrive.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "There are three ways to get something done. Do it yourself, hire someone
  to do it for you or forbid your kids to do it."