Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Barbarian cities?
On 7 July 2012 18:59, Jacob Nevins <0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > (Could be either a change in barbarian behaviour, or other AI players > have got worse at defending / recapturing against barbarians.) Maybe both. I've noticed with my own ruleset (as human player) that barbarian problem is harder in early game (I once investigated this just enough to notice that code that in earlier versions prevented barbarians from attacking too weak (=not enough cities) players is no longer there - maybe my too low onsetbarbs turn was not actually used in earlier versions because of that check). At the same time AI seems to care about defense even less (it has always relied on knowing when someone is approaching and setting defenses only then - which has never worked well with barbarians that are not *approaching* but just appear) - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] Barbarian cities?
A few times recently, I've noticed games where a barbarian player has ended up with a bunch of cities (usually undefended). This is happening in my S2_4 experimental-ruleset test game. Plausibly the other times I've seen it are with S2_4 as well. I very occasionally used to see barbarian cities, but now I'm seeing contiguous areas with three or four of them, quite often, lasting for a long time. I *think* they're captured rather than founded (unfortunately one is Pirates adjoining Jamaicans so it's hard to tell from the city names). Is this expected behaviour? If not, I can investigate further. (Could be either a change in barbarian behaviour, or other AI players have got worse at defending / recapturing against barbarians.) ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
