[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Freeciv] rfc: autoattack

[Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:07:08PM +0000, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I think this server-side autoattack is turning the gameplay (at least
> > > > single-player) upside down. I am strongly against it.
> > > 
> > > As I have tried to explain before, this is what you get for turning a
> > > turn-based game into a real-time game without thinking real hard about
> > > design problems. You get nastiness like autokill, to which there are only
> > > two proper solutions:
> > >  1) give everyone equal opportunity to use it (ie server-side), or
> > >  2) institute alternating movement phases within the same turn
> > > 
> > > Everything else is a kludge.
> > 
> > Right now we have two games in one:
> > 1. Multiplayer game.
> > 2. Playing against AI.
> > 
> > In game 2 there is no concurrent movement, it's strictly turn-based.  In 
> > game 1, so I hear, speed of clicking and connection is essential.
> > 
> > A poll taken a year ago shows that 70% of freeciv users play game 2.
> > 
> > My opposition to the AA patch is based on the feeling that it will have 
> > unpredictable consequences on game 2.  Attacking a city with AA units 
> > requires great degree of coordination between units.  Right now AI has 
> > only very basic coordination and will certainly not be able to do anything 
> > against AA.  It is easy to teach AI to employ AA.  It is far harder to 
> > teach it to overcome it.
> > 
> > The effects of introduction of AA, in my opinion, are far greater than
> > that of a huge rule-change like "shore bombardment is not fatal".  
> > However, these effects are very interesting.  If AI can be tought to 
> > handle it, we will have a completely new game on our hands and attract 
> > more players.  But it is a big "if".
> > 
> > I therefore ask for it to become an option.  Possibly a three-way option:
> >  1. AA doesn't work.
> >  2. AA doesn't work against AI players.
> >  3. AA works. 
> > The big problem is that it is feature creep.  If AI is taught to support
> > AA, it has to be taught to distinguish between options, which have huge
> > effect on the gameplay.  But I see no other way, apart from forking the
> > project, which is not desirable.
> 
> Nice idea: we can make the hard mode really hard by giving the AI
> server side AA. And give almost all AI units an implicit AA do that
> the AI doesn't have to think too hard if it should do AA or not.

That was sort of my reason behind option 2, but your idea to give *all* 
units AA makes it simpler.  Also need to teach AI to build attacking units 
and keep them around, not send on suicide missions.

G.