mimo

Thanks for the files. The bug was present in release 16, but has been already corrected in svn.

You may find the info in http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Debugging Look for "replay mode" and then follow the GameDataPaths link

Going to the corner like that usually means that its destination is undefined. If you have the commands.txt file and the revision version that you used, i can have a look at it.

It has to be changed in the code. Checking back, the present minimal distance with allied cc is 120 m which is quite small I agree. I will increase it to 200 m. Is this 120 m what you had ?

Thanks for the report corky, it is more a warning than an error which i should rather print only whens debug are activated. In your case, I guess you have destroyed all the AI's markets, and it could not find a training facility for the traders it had planned while its markets were alive. So nothing to worry

Do you mean when you are allied with the AI ? or enemy ? If it happens when allied, there is already a minimum distance with allied cc, but this can be increased. if it happens when enemy, I guess that's part of the game: it is up to you to prevent this to happen by destroying its foundation In principle, Petra is not "attracted" by other cc, but by good location, and fighting for a good location is expected.

From nowhere just as a starting point (as said in my post), it would already be much better than what is available now (i.e. the number of units). Of course, this would be just a starting point and we will have to improve these weight using unit stats (as also said in the post). But this improved weight will certainly take quite some time and trials before having something which suits the most people. So the idea was to start with something simple (to check and implement the concept) and improve it later. But I've nothing against implementing already a better unit weight ! The only thing I would like to avoid is that this "simple summary estimator" transforms in a "lot of complementary estimators".

Did I ever say that the attack strength would tell you if you will win or not ? No, it was only supposed to be an indicator of your strength. Then if you want to split it in infantry and cavalry, and health and whatever you like, and combine hitpoints, pierce, crush or whatever you like for the weight, that's fine. But what I would like from such an indicator is for it to stay simple to interpret, and to allow you to have a snapshot of your global strength relative to your opponents without having to look at 20 charts.

as already mentionned, % of territory would be useful. I guess it can be computed with no cost inside CCmpTerritoryManager.cpp an "army strength" : weighted sum of units (for example start with 0 for female, 1 for soldiers, 2 for champions and 5 for heros, and later refine these weights using attack stats) a "defensive strength" : weighted sum of buildings (for example, start with 3 for civcentre or fortress, 1 for tower, 0 for others) these strengths would be quite arbitrary, but would allow a better comparison of military power than the numbers of units or buildings

Nice plots. These could be quite useful to understand and improve the AI behaviour. What is the color code in this example ? and what is the % area ? the explored one ? having the % of our territory would be quite useful.

hi gameboy, thanks for the report. The first error is now fixed in svn.

And you are obviously very bad at riddles

we are may-be diverging a bit from the original subject ? but yes I've never used dble-click to select all traders because I usually never trade only one resource and that is the rare case where it is usefull. In fact, before the A16 changes, I nearly never changed the resources assigned to my traders because it was really not convenient. But I agree that for people trading only one resource at a time, and changing it frequently, the new system implies more clicks ! may-be we can try and improve the present trade window (waiting for a full gui review) using keys : for example, when we ctrl-click on one resource, it will be put to 100%. We could also change the step to be 10% instead of the 5% which is may-be not really needed.

Because you are an adept of trading with only one resource does not mean everybody wants it. If you want to have for example 2 resources with 30% and 70%, you would still have to do some manipulations (and computations if several trade routes with different incomes) to achieve what you need. Concerning the number of clicks with 5% increase, as I said, the GUI certainly deserves some improvments (a slider would be better).

The GUI of this new trade interface could certainly be improved to make it less confusing for new players, but I really do not understand the second part of your sentence: how can it be more painful to change your trade income at only one place instead of having to hunt after all your traders to change their resource ?

Thanks gameboy for the report. The first group of warnings (mistyped argument) is just a new spidermonkey warning. I'll try to get rid of it in a next commit, but this has no effect. The second group is a forgotten debug printout, already removed in svn For the third group, I've no idea !

I had a quick look at it, and it's not a bug, but a feature :you share the LOS with your allies only if you are mutual allies. When you break the alliance and try again to be allied with the AI, that does not mean that the AI is your ally again. In fact, there is not yet any diplomacy implemented for the AI: so when you declare war to your ally, it becomes your ennemy and will stay so.

A new major upgrade of Petra AI has just been commited in svn. It features a first version of naval support, as well as some bug fixes. Tests (specially that no regression were introducedfor land maps) would be very usefull. In case of errors, please provide the commands.txt file and the version of your svn build. Concerning naval maps, there are a few known issues - ship combat is not yet implemented (ship are mainly used for transport of armies in oversea attacks) - path finding issues with ships blocking themselves - the placement of defensive structure (tower and fortress) is not adapted for small islands, so the AI rarely built them - carthage does not yet use shipyard, so does not have war ships - trade is quite broken in naval maps - the reaction of the AI to its ennemies actions is still quite dumb Finally, if anybody want to help and improve this AI, all these issues are a good way to start. I can point you to the right file and piece of code if needed.

Lion, this is not controlled by this AI, but the simulation. So should be true for all AIs

Mythos_Ruler, thanks for the report. The petra error is fixed in svn r15092 sanderd17, thanks for the fix on sprintf ! Were you also able to reproduce the one on timer.js ? It also appeared for me when the I18n code was introduced, but may-be due to some "Change perspective" feature ?

The first two errors ERROR: JavaScript error: uncaught exception: [sprintf] property "name" does not exist and WARNING: JavaScript warning: gui/common/timer.js line 64 have appeared when the I18n code was commited. And for me, I appears only when changing perspective and taking the AI player (both aegis and petra). I've made a ticket for the first one http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/2485 The last error ERROR: JavaScript error: simulation/ai/common-api/utils.js line 23 is certainly a petra error. I will have a look at it.

Lion, for 2, which AI was the red ? in principle, this should not happen with petra.

Thanks leper for the report and the commands.txt. The error was because Petra was assuming that buildings with an ArrowMultiplier had necessarity a ranged attack. It seems that this is true for all, except colonies (ptol and sele). I suppose that it is intended for colonies to not have any attack (it is explicitely disabled), but for consistency shouldn't we also remove the ArrowMultiplier for garrisoned units ? In any case, I will add an additional test on the ranged attack.

do not worry gameboy, nobody underestimates the importance of saved games.

Hi sander, thanks for the tests, I agree on most points you noticed and I'm working on improving them. but there is one thing I can't reproduce, it is the ptolemies blocked at 35 pop cap. The possibility I see for that to happen is if there was not enough space to build new houses ? on what map were you playing ? and if you see it again, can you provide me the commands.txt.