public inbox for xconq7@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Kingdon <kingdon@panix.com>
To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: fighters fighting without ammo
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:02:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200312131621.hBDGLR809132@panix5.panix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <l03130303bc00a1047c50@[212.181.162.155]> (message from Hans Ronne on Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:07:36 +0100)

> I think an AI that goes for the jugular, i.e. attacks all enemy units
> within sight would be much meaner.

Probably so.  Although I usually succeed by a flanking attack on the
AI (generally on the very edge of the world), and an aggressive AI
might just tend to throw its units even more away from where I'm
attacking.

> I think there would be a negative effect on performance, but I haven't
> tested this rigourously.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to put in some instrumentation for
performance (like reporting times for "AI action-reaction code", "UI",
and other such categories).  Of course the tricky part is that the hot
spots might vary by game, by whether one is early or late in the game,
and any number of other variables.  But subjectively it seems like I'm
waiting more and more for xconq while the AI's move (I use sequential
mode, because the game is easier if the AI's move first and use up
their ACP's before I move).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-12-13 16:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-07 16:07 Kenneth Gonsalves
2003-12-07 16:54 ` Lincoln Peters
2003-12-07 17:36 ` Jim Kingdon
2003-12-07 18:13   ` Skeezics Boondoggle
2003-12-07 23:54     ` Bruno Boettcher
2003-12-13  5:11       ` Eric McDonald
2003-12-13 10:57         ` Bruno Boettcher
2003-12-13 12:02           ` Hans Ronne
2003-12-13 19:55             ` Eric McDonald
2003-12-13 20:02             ` Jim Kingdon [this message]
2003-12-14  4:33               ` Hans Ronne
2003-12-08  8:19     ` Kenneth Gonsalves
2003-12-13  4:59     ` Eric McDonald

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200312131621.hBDGLR809132@panix5.panix.com \
    --to=kingdon@panix.com \
    --cc=xconq7@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).