[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Bombers/Fighters no longer obsolete (PR#1628)

[Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 04:29:04AM -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > So what about increasing the HPs to 30 and reduce the defense strength
> > from 5 to 3?
> 
> 
> Ack. My tone seems a bit hostile in the previous email. Accept my apologies.
>  
> Hmm. Interesting. I am opposed to the hp change. The reason is that it defies
> intuition. Stealth Bombers are not very physically tough units. On the other
> hand, they deliver a very powerful attack. So I would prefer a firepower or
> attack rating increase.
> 
> Think of the battleship having 40 hitpoints. That represents the incredible
> armour a battleship has.
> 
> I want a firepower increase to 3. That would make stealth bombers more 
> powerful
> than regular bombers.
> 
> 14attack * 20hps * 3fp = 840
> 14attack * 30hps * 2fp = 840
> 
> So 3 Stealth would have 2520 attack power vs 4 * (12 * 20 * 2) = 1920. The
> stealth bomber would win easily.
> 
> hps = hitpoints fp = firepower attack = attack rating of unit
> 
> 
> The defence changes I leave to your judgement. Do we want to represent how 
> much
> harder a stealth bomber is allegedly to target? If so, leave the defence
> unchanged. If not, lower it to 3.
> 
> Greg, Per, I would like your comments here. Especially Greg's. He was the one
> who pointed out the decided weakness of stealth units.
> 
> Raimar: While we are at it, what are the rules for balancing units? I suggest
> that we work out some rules for how powerful units should be. I'll suggest a
> couple:

This is a good question. _If_ we assume that
"(a->{attack,defense}_strength * a->firepower * a->hp)/a->build_cost"
defines the raw military value of a unit you get the attached list
(the values are multiplied by 100 to avoid floats). First value is
att/cost (a->attack_strength * a->firepower *
a->hp)/a->build_cost. Second value is def/cost (a->defense_strength *
a->firepower * a->hp)/a->build_cost. Third is the sum.

You can now also look at the changes in these values in the case of
upgrading. So for example the Warriors -> Pikemen change is a bad move
based on the all/cost value but you get the Pikeman flag. You also see
that the upgrading to Musketeers and Cannon is a good move.

And last but not least you see that:

 Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
             build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
        attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
       defense_strength:    1 -- >    5  +400%
              move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
               att/cost:  400 -- >  350   -12%
               def/cost:   33 -- >  125  +278%
               all/cost:  433 -- >  475    +9%

in the Stealth Bomber case you only get +9%. To make this a bit more
sweet I would up the all/cost to just below 600 (similar to the
Stealth Fighter). Possible solutions are:

 Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
             build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
        attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
              move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
              firepower:    2 -- >    3   +50%
               att/cost:  400 -- >  525   +31%
               def/cost:   33 -- >   37   +12%
               all/cost:  433 -- >  562   +29%

 Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
             build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
        attack_strength:   12 -- >   20   +66%
       defense_strength:    1 -- >    3  +200%
              move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
               att/cost:  400 -- >  500   +25%
               def/cost:   33 -- >   75  +127%
               all/cost:  433 -- >  575   +32%

> No unit should be invulnerable. There should always be at least one unit that
> can destroy that unit at a favourable shield ratio. For example, take a
> battleship:

> There is no unit that can successfully destroy a battleship at a good loss
> ratio. Subs should be the unit for the job. They should have an attack rating
> that is higher, so that they can kill a battleship. Adjust their shield cost 
> to
> 80 to compensate for their power.

From the raw numbers

            Destroyer:  200 +  200 =  400
              Cruiser:  450 +  450 =  900
        AEGIS Cruiser:  480 +  480 =  960
           Battleship:  600 +  600 = 1200
            Submarine: 1000 +  200 = 1200

Battleship and Submarine are equal priced. It may be possible to
change the attack of Submarines from 10 to 14 and the cost from 60 to
80.

> And in turn, destroyers should have a big advantage against subs. At
> long last Freeciver's will build something other than battleships
> when they have the tech.

??

> Think Scissors, Paper, Rock.
> 

> Next: Sometimes units should be far more powerful than the previous generation
> of units. Gunpowerder is an excellent example. All units after gunpowder 
> should
> be more powerful than the earlier units.

See above.

> Air units need a boost to their move rate. All air units. How much should the
> boost be? I favour an across the board 200% increase in move rate.

I haven't a position about this yet.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "From what I am reading Win98 and NT5.0 will be getting rid of all that
  crap anyway. Seems that Microsoft has invented something called TCP/IP and
  another really revolutionary concept called DNS that eliminates the
  netbios crap too. All that arping from browsers is going to go away.
  I also hear rumors that they are on the verge of breakthrough discoveries
  called NFS, and LPD too. Given enough time and money, they might
  eventually invent Unix."
    -- George Bonser in linux-kernel

overview
Description: Text document

upgrading
Description: Text document