From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2539 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2004 03:58:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2531 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2004 03:58:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO garm.central.cmich.local) (141.209.15.48) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2004 03:58:41 -0000 Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:58:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B8E70022; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:58:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:58:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald To: Hans Ronne Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: occupant combat in standard game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2004 03:58:33.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[FE3187D0:01C3EA09] X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00089.txt.bz2 Hi Hans, others, On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Hans Ronne wrote: > An easy way to improve the ability of fighters to intercept should be to > increase the default setting for u_ai_tactical_range. The current value of > 4 is really too low. I picked it in order to be on the safe side with > respect to ai performance, but it could probably be boosted to 12 or so > without too much of a slowdown. Yeah, 12 might be OK. Probably would be perfectly fine once the path-caching / network desync stuff is properly addressed. I'm planning on doing a significant overhaul of Bellum, where the aircraft tactical ranges are probably set too high, and will probably reduce those ranges some, because of the computational burden. > The theater reassignment code you ask for does exist (review_theaters and > mplayer_review_units). It is run at the start of each turn, which should be > sufficient. The code cares more about area control than about attacking > specific units, though. This is the way the mplayer works, however, for > better or for worse. Well, I haven't actually traced through these functions yet (since I haven't switched focus to AI strategy), but it seems that mplayer_review_units would not mess with PLAN_OFFENSIVE units which don't have goals. It does some rebalancing in the case of exploratory and defensive plans, but apparently not offensive ones. If this is the case, then plan_offense is going to be re-executed and call the tactical function, ai_go_after_victim, quite a bit. (And this seems to be what I actually see when I watch mplayers....) Eric