Update of patch #4832 (project freeciv):

                  Status:          Ready For Test => Wont Do                


Follow-up Comment #3:

Thinking about these criticisms, I won't apply this patch, as it makes more
sense to properly encapsulate the semantics.  Generally speaking, my
preference is to extend the use of server/advisors for collecting static
information about the ruleset or state of the game, simply because that
already contains the appropriate structures and logic for parsing status at
ruleset load and each turn.  The alternative is to create dai_foo functions
and data structures that mirror this, and have the advisors code call AI
callbacks so each AI has separate data.  In the short term, this does make
adv.land_move and adv_sea_move more important, but these provide more accurate
representation in cases where complex units are considered.

My initial thoughts (although they may change with implmentation) on the
behaviours to be represented by individial patches when breaking this down:

    Consider whether the unit is a good defender for the terrain of the city
being analysed, rather than how the unit moves.

    Consider whether the enemy unit can attack the missile platform (using
reverse pathfinding), rather than how the unit moves.

    This guard exists to protect some areas of the AI code that don't work
correctly: needs closer understanding of the rationale for the imposed

    Examine callers in more detail, possibly replace with a check about
sea_move == MOVE_FULL, or, if possible, with analysis of whether unit can
reach destination.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to