This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: fighters fighting without ammo


> 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).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]