[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#5438) Starting position tidbit
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: |
undisclosed-recipients: ; |
Subject: |
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#5438) Starting position tidbit |
From: |
"Karen Yeats" <kayeats@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:24:17 -0700 |
Reply-to: |
rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Yes, this really was just a quick hack, I'm not surprised you don't like
it. I use it because it's good enough. Really I'd like to get away
from the "pick a place randomly and see if it's ok" algorithm entirely
rather than just improve the "see if it's ok" part but I don't see how
to do that in this case.
> 1 (serious) is_good_starter presumes that SPECIALs have certain effect,
> like SPECIAL_1 in desert is always oasis with good food. This can be
> changed by rulesets! And all other code I know can deal with it
flexibly.
> I suggest you base your mark on food & production values instead.
> Have a look at Per's new settlers patch somewhere on Freeciv-AI.
is_good_tile should be fixed in the same way. That is an excellent
suggestion.
> 2 If you start on 256x256 map with plenty of plains and space, the
> algorithm can still put your settler on a forest. The check that to
> prevent such things is currently
> + /* don't start on bad land until we're getting desparate */
> + if ((map.xsize + map.ysize) / 5 < dist * is_good_starter(x, y)) {
> + return TRUE;
> + }
> I would rather suggest a check against the amount by which dist was
> decreased in create_start_positions. If it dropped 30% from it's
original
> values, we can consider forests, 50% -- we will take good hills etc.
> Something along the lines anyway.
Ok, that makes good sense too. I don't have a new patch right now but I
wanted to respond so you knew I hadn't abandoned this. I'm moving to
Boston to start my PhD and must finish packing up now so it will be a
good few days at least.
Karen
|
|