Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallo
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallo

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#9624) remove ugliness from ai_calc_pollution/fallout
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:51:34 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9624 >

Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9624 >
> 
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> 
>>But that is already practically guaranteed by the "extra" value passed
>>to consider_settler_action.  There is surely no need for multiple such
>>values to be added on.
> 
> 
> I agree one mechanism is enough.  But "extra" has to be carefully balanced
> with the main part, and "best_other" is already in the right scale.

In that case we can probably remove pplayer->ai.warmth.  And we should 
remove the "extra" field entirely and take all effects into account in 
the initial calculation.

road_bonus() is done via the "extra" parameter so that it can be done 
dynamically (according to a comment).  That is, if one settler starts 
building a road then road_bonus() will consider this road to be done 
while calculating the bonus for a nearby tile.  However this is surely a 
very minor issue, and under our proposed design it would be a non-issue 
anyway.

(Which reminds me, we haven't actually proposed the design yet.)

jason




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]