Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update CityLocationTileRanker and Automation.kt #12343

Draft
wants to merge 178 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

EmperorPinguin
Copy link
Contributor

@EmperorPinguin EmperorPinguin commented Oct 22, 2024

  • I spend a little too much time trying to fix this part of AI city settling via comparing improvement yield stat values, but I din't succeed as I'm not a coder. I decided to go with an approach that works for G&K, and then a more experienced coder can optimize and generalize it as they want.
  • Updates citizen assignement to let the AI better manage happiness issues.
  • The value of a last copy of unique luxury is valued at 750 in line 251 in TradEvaluation, but at 500 in line 253, which is it? I decided to set them both to an intermediate value of 600.
  • Updates the formula for calculating CarryOverFood (it's not entirely correct, as we'd need to take into account the food cost increase of the next citizen as well as existing CarryOverFood, but less wrong), and reduces the base food multiplyer to 2, to be more comparable to the value for citizen assignement.
  • Adds evaluation for tile improvement placing and tile yields by buildings (work in progress)

@yairm210
Copy link
Owner

I'm very much against adding ruleset-specific code, in its current state this is unmergable by my standards

@EmperorPinguin EmperorPinguin changed the title Update CityLocationTileRanker.kt Update CityLocationTileRanker and Automation.kt Oct 24, 2024
@EmperorPinguin EmperorPinguin marked this pull request as draft October 24, 2024 18:27
@EmperorPinguin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm very much against adding ruleset-specific code, in its current state this is unmergable by my standards

I get why (I think it's a bit ugly as well), but it's the solution I'm proposing to adress the issue, which hasn't been adressed in the past... however long Unciv exists it seems. What to do?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants