-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
Feature request: Avoid unfriendly CS territory in pathfinding #12718
Comments
If your point is to improve the pathfinding, the title is misleading A quick win is avoiding similar paths, which we can do by ordering the tiles we check |
That's part of the pathfinding algorithm though |
Added to 4.14.19? That's awesome. I think this will have a subtle positive effect on player and cpu civ management across the board for all players. I've been looking at the commits, and walked the code tree looking to see what changed maybe gaining a glimpse of further understanding how this AI pathfinding change thing works as coded... but I didn't find anything. How does something like this get implemented but not show up in the code? Maybe client side library builds? idk :( |
Before creating
Problem Description
Hills and forests etc incur a movement penalty/cost of 2, thus movement calculations will route around these tiles if there's a lower cost route. CS territory does not appear to be considered when routing a path, so CS territory is disrespected, which becomes a relations issue for non-friendly CS's when ending movement in their territory.
Related Issue Links
No response
Desired Solution
A couple suggestions for when a path to the destination is found to cross through unfriendly CS territory:
Any added cost shouldn't affect movement reachability, so maybe +0.01 per CS tile. If this concurs.
Alternative Approaches
Same as above broken down into 3 UI selectable options:
Additional Context
I wonder if such checks could be made possible with performance in mind. But would there be a performance hit if those tiles were internally layered into the same movement cost consideration as any other terrain/feature (avoiding a per-tile ownership {invoking hash map madness!} check).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: