Re: [Civil-devel]LoS bug

On 24 Jul 2001, Mike Earl wrote:

>On 24 Jul 2001 02:38:48 -0700, John Eikenberry wrote:
>> BTW, what's the current line of thought about the AI?
>
>That we need to implement basic combat first. :)  Chakie wrote an AI
>that runs as a seperate client process but doesn't actually do anything
>yet.  

Yeah, it should work as a fairly good framework for adding the AI stuff
into. Currently it has to be started separately and given the data on the
commandline, but that could be changed to be spawned if needed from within
the normal client.

>I have some ideas about this; a fairly simple heirarchical rules-based
>planning system might be a passable opponent, especially if the scenario
>file included hints for the AI about appropriate roles for various
>units.

That would require scenario editors to think about the way the AI works.
Could be too much to ask? But *if* there was something then the info could
be used.

>Wilder possibilities might be some kind of emergent behavior based on
>signalling (sort of the way ants work) or some kind of neural net; these
>would probably be a little more robust if they could be made to work at
>all (not straightforward).

Sounds like advanced plans. I have no idea about AI myself (apart from
brute force stuff), and neural nets have AFAIK not really shown themselves
to be worthy of all the attention they've got. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
           -- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)