[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4387) The Return of the Rand() Moves

["Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:44:05AM -0700, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > > No if the only reason is that it is hard to implement.
> 
> It is not the only reason. It is a good reason. I do not wish to rehash
> the other arguments, they are in the mail archives.

Maybe you can give 2-3 short hints since the archives are big.

> > > will slow the PF down significantly
> >
> > That is true. I'm not sure about the "significantly" but it will be
> > slower.
> 
> Path finding (old warmap and new pf) is the single biggest CPU consumer in
> the server. If this makes pf slower, than that is a rather important
> argument.

The AI doesn't have to use it. If however the AI calls the code with
TM_STATISTICAL_WEIGHTS than you have to expect a slowdown. The same is
true if you call it with is_pos_dangerous!=NULL. These facts are known
and the AI people have to decide if the added precision is worth it.

> > > The outline implementation will be a nightmare to implement and maintain,
> >
> > Can I convince you that this isn't the case if I code the implementation?
> 
> As a last resort, I am for making rand() moves a server option, as long as
> it defaults to off and the rand() move code path does not add complexity
> to or slows down the non-rand() code path.

IMHO it should be done the other way around: the ai code gets
converted to the new path-finding and then we test how it performs
with different cost models (TM_*). I think Ross will predict that the
cost model won't matter. If this is the case this means that
TM_STATISTICAL_WEIGHTS is only useful for humans.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.