Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3775 (project freeciv):

I understand the limited application, but even for that, I'm not sure how this
helps the AI use classical units, and all uses of uclass_move_type() are on a
list I hope to eliminate.

For the classic, civ1, civ2, and multiplayer rulesets, where there aren't such
per-terrain restrictions, all the UMT_BOTH units appear to have either fuel or
hp_loss_pct restrictions that constrain movement in ways that the current
logic doesn't consider when determining potential bodyguards.  Such units
assigned as classical bodyguards would quickly either die or abandon their
charges to survive.

For the alien, civ2civ3, and experimental rulesets, the current logic already
may not work for S2_5, depending on the exact placement of roads, bases, or
other nativity providers.  For example, a Mech. Inf. might be selected as a
defender for an Engineer, but wouldn't actually be able to provide coverage
for the Engineer when building a road over a mountain until the road was built
(Alien has even more complex considerations).

The above notwithstanding, if there is another ruleset that the AI is able to
understand with the current nativity handling that has more complex types that
do benefit from this change, I waive my objection, although if I can make the
code work without reference to crude nativity, I'll try to patch it away.

Although I like the idea of precaching potential followers, I fear that a
complete solution would need to involve dynamic bodyguard assignment depending
on current targets and comparative pathfinding for the unit and bodyguard to
ensure they would be able to travel together and provide coverage over the
entire path and during the activity at the destination (which might be only a
single turn, for instance a Howitzer attacking a city).  Simple precaching
based on accessible terrains may not account for cases where the path around
inaccessible terrain is too long to be of practical use (or even impossible:
consider a thin island bisected by a mountain range), nor for the variable
placement of roads and bases over time during the game.

For GameLoss, staying in a city is not necessarily sufficient if migration is
enabled: the city might not remain there, etc.  Similarly, depending on
current circumstances, it might be safer for a GameLoss unit to be on
transport with some settlers and bodyguards to found a new empire than stay to
defend a nearly lost cause in a poor strategic position.  That said, city
guards do have broader safe nativity ranges (especially if BuildAnywhere), but
it may make sense to select units that are capable of attacking a majority of
adjacent tiles for proactive defense, AutoAttack, etc.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://gna.org/patch/?3775>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to