Follow-up Comment #20, bug #18767 (project freeciv):
Just to clarify, the CMA does not look at the value of gold_upkeep_style.
I have not looked at, why gold_upkeep_style=2 could resolve the issue (as
described in comment #13), as the flawed pruning caused (at least in my game)
many unnecessary taxmen, which disappeared with my patch. (Actually using
trade as source of gold did not always get considered correctly, which made
the CMA use taxmen to reach minimal surplus, even if not necessary.)
There remains the rather philosophical question, whether the CMA should
consider the minimal surplus of gold for each city with gold_upkeep_style=2,
which is already discussed in (comment #12). (In cities, with lots of
buildings, setting -20 gold surplus will not suffice to get rid of all
taxmen.)
However looking at treasury, etc. would make the CMA not only more complicated
but a lot more unintuitive, imho.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?18767>
_______________________________________________
Nachricht gesendet von/durch Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
