Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21641 (project freeciv):

Oh, yes, it is exactly the same bug, I didn't see it.

I understand what you say, and I think mostly the same: if the only difference
comes when the player runs out of money, then gold upkeep styles are not
really needed.
However, for some reason, they affect the AI behavior, and that is the reason
why I use them in my rulesets.

I have not read the AI code much, but from my experience, the AI seems to take
into acount the expenses of a city when it comes time to decide to build
another improvement, and the AI seems balanced when the only expense of the
cities is the gold upkeep of buildings.
However, when we introduce units with gold upkeep in a ruleset (and default
gold_upkeep_style = 0), then the expenses of the cities are increased by these
units, and the AI seems to build less improvements in the cities, but nothing
stops them from creating more units (that I know), and at the end the AI is
not very challenging (too much units that they can not support due to lack of
developed cities).

When I use gold_upkeep_style = 1, the amount of units do not seem to affect
the construction of buildings in AI cities, and the result are AI cities more
similar to rulesets where there are no units with gold upkeep.

Then, there was this gold_upkeep_style = 2, where AI seems to build
improvements as if there were no tomorrow. It is a bug, but in some rulesets
where buildings are really important, the AI was much more challenging this

My guess is that someone introduced those gold_upkeep_style as a workaround to
avoid redesigning the AI behavior to take into account properly the units with
gold upkeep, and it is a solution good enough to me.

But again, I do not know the code, and I might be wrong.
I'll try to test this patch #2863, I'm curious to verify if gold_upkeep_style
= 2 still affect the AI behavior once fixed.


Reply to this item at:


  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to