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

Rebalance Food Weights #12582

Closed
wants to merge 75 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

itanasi
Copy link
Contributor

@itanasi itanasi commented Dec 6, 2024

Rework the weight of Food evaluation for Citizen Management.
Generic AI Civ performance improves and this matches closer to human expectations. Some AIs such as Korea will perform a bit worse in certain scenarios due to Personalities, but we should fix the Personalities instead of break base behavior.
Still room for improvements in corner cases.
Discussion and data in Discord thread:
https://discord.com/channels/586194543280390151/1306726293102006453/1306726299884195932

Also adding a small feature to the console sims

@itanasi itanasi marked this pull request as draft December 6, 2024 16:45
@itanasi itanasi marked this pull request as ready for review December 8, 2024 05:04
yairm210 and others added 8 commits December 9, 2024 10:45
* Bump version and create initial changelog entry

* Update Latin translation (yairm210#12616)

* Update translation

* Update translation

* Update translation

* Fix translation

* Update translation

* Update translation

* Fix translation

* Update dutch translations (yairm210#12589)

* Update Dutch.properties

* Update Dutch.properties

* Update Dutch.properties

* Update Dutch.properties

* Update Dutch.properties

* Update Croatian translation (yairm210#12586)

* City name of native Americans

* Greek and Babylonian cities

* Update Egyptian cities and few terms

---------

Co-authored-by: yairm210 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: sls1005 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: dutchwolfgirl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: metablaster <[email protected]>
@itanasi
Copy link
Contributor Author

itanasi commented Dec 15, 2024

Then I'd argue you're mixing issues. Personalities messing with things is separate and we should work to have a solid base value. Can you set up a baseline game of generic Civs and see how they behave instead?

Fundamentally, do you feel strongly enough that you want to veto this PR? Or can we pull this and work on other improvements later?

@EmperorPinguin
Copy link
Contributor

Then I'd argue you're mixing issues. Personalities messing with things is separate and we should work to have a solid base value. Can you set up a baseline game of generic Civs and see how they behave instead?

With these values I ran 5 games (20 data points) from the same t0 save I mentioned before (with personalities), and got an average t80 pop of 93.7. The last 'benchmark' was 99.9 t80 pop #12582 (comment). That was on a different version of Unciv, but is was a gain compared to 94.7 t80 pop ceteris paribus. In a test before that, I got 95.8 t80 pop. While 5 games isn't statistically significant, all these are higher than 93.7 which makes me suspicious, and my other experiments of lowering food value multiplier also resulted in lower population.

Note that somewhat lowering food value itself doesn't logically lead to lower pop, as there should be more production available to construct growth infrastructure (settlers, workers, granaries, water mills, aqueducts etc).

How generic civs behave should follow from the values you set, so (2× food value) > (2 production) > (1.5 × food value) > (1 production + 1 gold) > (1× food value) > (1 production). I'll see if I can set up a test with generic civs tomorrow, maybe we should automate this to get statistically significant results.

@itanasi itanasi marked this pull request as draft December 16, 2024 04:05
@itanasi itanasi mentioned this pull request Dec 16, 2024
@itanasi itanasi closed this Dec 16, 2024
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.

6 participants