The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

The problem is that there are very few times while in a campaign that it makes sense for the AI to save it's gold at all. I'd like to hear flixx's (author's) opinion on that (I hope that he will reply, mattsc pinged him about this thread). I don't see a problem with changing the default value, not ...

What are the odds of this change being backed out as far as being the default setting? It's totally possible that the feature needs tweaks, since the feature is new and might not work 'as intended' in situations with allied ai/human sides or in other cases. I'd prefer the feature to be activated by...

This label seems fine and the general approach seems fine, although couldn't we use it as the default on two-player multiplayer games on which we had tested it? yes, we can set it default for 2p mp maps, but only for default era (non-default eras can have different unit sets). P.S. <joke> if we nam...

It's good to see some working code making the AI better. How can this patch be included in Wesnoth? If it is consistenty better than the old recruitment (when trained for a particular map), I would include the patch in wesnoth when all the issues would be sorted out. Since the algorithm requires per...

for making attacks simpler, it should be possible to do by decreasing the attach depth (if the feature is currently broken, it should be trivial to fix); Also, there's a constant in the code which can be changed to limit the amount of attacks considered and evaluated (but this shouldn't matter much ...

Hello! Thanks. Some notes about your remarks: 1) yes, control of leaders and other not-to-be-lost units should be handled differently, but there's no work done about this at the moment. 2) AI (with default aggression of 0.4) would attack at approximately 2:1 disadvantage, and might not consider next...

roughly: create hp distribution matrix, set to initial hitpoints, 'simulate' all attacks, changing the hp distribution matrix in the process, after each attack. see
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/wesnoth/trun ... iew=markup

yes, the AI recruitment is not working as intended when there are 2+ leaders who can recruit. If SoC_Ideas_AI_Recruitment_2012 would be in gsoc, it'd be fixed. Else, I'll fix it later. Patches welcome.

great:)
I'll try to patch it into my code for last scenario of Two Brothers to see if it would help the AI win it

There are already scenarios where the game creator selects a difficulty level or other parameter on the first turn of the game. It would make sense for these to be options as well, especially if they were displayed before the game began. I agree Settlers of Wesnoth has a victory point target and do...

"However, that would mean that I have to exclude my protected unit from the move-to-targets phase (just as it is excluded from combat with the attacks aspect and [filter_own]). Is that possible? " For historical reasons, ai_special="guardian" (in the unit definition) was supposed...

Is there a real advantage of using the patch over :droid? For testing something like this, I would work with an "skimmed down" version of a scenario anyway, without message and unnecessary events. Maybe later this could be tested for a number of existing campaigns, but that's a long way o...

So, if you have suggestions for a different behavior that you would like to see and you can describe it very specifically, I'd be grateful for any ideas. Or if you have, say, as sample map for which you can specify exactly where you want units to be during different parts of the day and what they s...

yes, this issue is known (as most of the other issues with old recruitment are). There are no good fixes available, until some coding tasks are complete.
'set recruitment_ignore_bad_combat=yes' will make recruitment more random.

AI attacks involving leader were taking too long to calculate. Should be fixed by [rev]52543[/rev]