FreeOrion

It must be activated by an AI config option:
allow_debug_chat=1

You may want to start freeorion using
--ai-config .\default\python\AI\ai_debug_config.ini

The population effect priorities were changed while moving the meter growth stuff into FOCS effects. Was the changed order of effects intended / discussed somewhere? At the very least, the AI calculations are currently broken because of that. This is a pretty serious bug and must be addressed before...

@Morlic, if you can please double check if you think I've missed something, or if it could be better phrased, or if you think we shouldn't bother mentioning some of this. I tried to keep an updated list of AI changes not related to refactoring / internal stuff during this cycle (probably not entire...

Your meters decay by 1 per turn. On first turn after the focus change, you will get an additional -1 penalty (so it drops by 2 that turn and that turn only). The idea behind focus dithering is that your meters decay and grow by the same rate (prior to the force-energy structures). So without a focus...

The fact that there is a merge commit implies you had some local changes (so pull couldn't fast-forward). Note that git pull --rebase avoids merge commits and is usually prefered. Maybe run git diff (with master) to find if there are significant changes that you would like to keep. To overwrite ALL ...

If the AI were crippled in some weird way that only you knew about, you'd still have to have some way to identify which AI it was, without that way being a deviation noticeable to the other players. Perhaps either direction of identification could be done via messaging, but if the players are going...

I thought you meant the players running some extra AIs on their machines. And that's still what I'd urge you to look at to most readily accomplish the goal. Which AI code is executed? Server sending arbitrary code to execute on client machine seems insane. Using the client's local AI code allows fo...

How about we go for the simplest approach for the first implementation (and possibly 0.4.8) - simply eliminate the empire and remove ownership of all its objects. Pending PR #2001 adds server side support for human players surrendering on those terms. Seems it could be reused for the AI. Everything ...

Hacking the universe generation scripts seems like a more straight forward approach as you do not have to reroll several games. diff --git a/default/python/universe_generation/empires.py b/default/python/universe_generation/empires.py index 201f0c0a0..01a5812b2 100644 --- a/default/python/universe_g...

I agree that the current implementation of GGGs is rather uninteresting and should strongly be reconsidered. For that to work, the build costs for a GGG must be high enough to make it not worth for systems with only one or even two non-GG planets that could be switched to industry. E.g. if the GG co...

Brodda wrote:including the AI.log files?

yes

The "unknown" bonus should be the homeworld bonus. No idea why it is displayed as unknown or even fluctuating though.

Having a class of weapon part that only fires on planets is a reasonable suggestion, but it's not really the same thing as the effects-production from current bombardment parts. I understand that these are two different things. My suggestion is indeed to merge those two concepts into a single part ...

Alternatively, bombardment could be made necessary to eliminate planet shields, and planets would be invulnerable during ship combat. I would prefer to let bombardment weapons additionally participate in combat but only target planets. They could be given significantly higher damage than current sh...

would it be possible to build a Scanning Facility first and then make the Interstellar Lighthouse be an upgrade that replaces it? Maybe reduce the time to build an Interstellar Lighthouse as well since you have to build a Scanning Facility first. Of course the new Interstellar Lighthouse would act ...