On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:04:02 PM Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Unfortunately not. Sometimes it passes, sometimes it fails. If it's
> known to be buggy, I'll have a look at it.

IIRC what is happening is that the check that prices recover with time depends 
on the regular goods removal removing enough goods.  For the purposes of the 
test we simulate this by calling the yearly-goods-removal routine N times, for 
sufficiently large N.

What has probably happened is that I rebalanced the amount of goods removed 
too low, making this test marginal (again IIRC there is a random component to 
the goods removal which will boost the variance).  The failure will probably 
go away if that was just nudged up a bit.  However what really needs to be 
done is to get some numbers on how fast the Col1 market recovered and try to 
simulate that.  I hope that explains why I left it failing for a while:-S.

So by all means look at it:-).  Or indeed at BR#3537373 that just arrived, as 
the reporter is on Debian and has a crash deep in the option processing.

> In theory, it should be easy to add "danger", i.e. the proximity of
> enemy units, to the cost function, shouldn't it?

Yes.  I did a brief experiment there a while back, and concluded that you 
could really blow out the search time if you implemented this in a simple 
minded manner but if you built up a cache map of <Tile, Danger> tuples as you 
went it ought to work.  I decided though not to push on there until the lower 
level map search fixes were in, and until the AIs had some concept of how much 
danger they were willing to tolerate in order to get a shorter path.

> The path finding
> algorithm of the original game is also particularly stupid in this
> regard. It does not hesitate to move a fully loaded ship next to an
> enemy privateer, or a warship next to a fort or fortress.

Nice to know that the bar is low.
 
> Another path finding issue is the notorious "great river problem", where
> two ships block each other's progress.

There are lots of places in the AI where it just constantly tries to do `the 
next thing', without any sort of backoff after failure.

Cheers,
Mike Pope

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freecol-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers

Reply via email to