[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2415) autoattack patch

[Thomas Strub <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> > > Ok, you want to know why some players want to have the possibility to
> > > remove the autoattack status from some units.
> > >
> > > 1. is stacks. I have different units and some units have low chances to
> > > win. I want that the strong units can attack.
> 
> This can be solved. The units that are eligible for autoattack can be
> pushed into a units list. Then we can start the autoattack check with the
> units that have highest win_chance. That way stronger units may always
> attack first.
> 
> (Notice that this still doesn't change the fact that the algorithm is
> single-unit-optimal: It looks at the survival odds of one unit rather than
> what is optimal for the situation as a whole. But this is an argument
> against the algorithm, not server-side only autoattack. And I'd argue the
> algorithm is likely to be situation optimal as well for the majority of
> situations.)

Ok, using a autoattackunitlist should remove the problems of most
situations like that above.

> > > 2. Until a cease-fire without embassy is enabled its not possible to
> > > stop war.
> 
> Ok, this is a problem. But I think it should be solved more generally by
> allowing at least some diplomacy without an embassy.

Fine.
 
> > > 3. Whats with a submarine with 8 cruise misseles? Should the sub attack?
> > > I don't think so. There are 8 other units which can attack.
> 
> This can be solved in server-only autoattack with a simple rule:
> Transported units should attack before transporters, if at all possible.

Think the list-solution can handle that too.

> > > 4. There are situation where i don't like to loose units because the
> > > autoattackalgorithm isn't perfect.
> 
> Please specify.

There a situations with low winchances (< 10%) and high winchances (>70%) 
where your algorithm isn't a good solution.

Winchance 5 %, Chance other unit is winning 100%. You would attack, but
with the attack the other unit isn't losing any MP + its possible the
unit is getting Veteran. You lose a unit without doing damage.
I think the damage should be higher than the value of a unit.

Thats one parameter. And i think the user should have the chance to
change that parameter.
 
> Also, why should autoattack be perfect?

It should be perfect. But perfect is different for different people.
 
> > > Can we have different autoattack algorithms where the player can
> > > choose from?
> 
> Please give examples of such algorithms and how to change them. I suspect
> this would make it too complex. I would like simple rules.
> 
> So the autoattack rule would be: When a unit moves into a new tile, it may
> be automatically attacked by the enemy unit that becomes adjacent to it
> which has highest win chance and is not transporting anything or there are
> no other units that can attack until each such unit has been given the
> opportunity to autoattack or the moving unit is destroyed.

+ making more damage attacking than losing the unit (or more units)
because of the attack of the unit which arrived. 

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nur weil das Aufzeichnen, Kopieren und Schnüffeln bei elektronischem 
Datenverkehr leichter als bei der klassischen Post ist, darf man es nicht
einfach tun.