[Freeciv-Dev] Re: BUG/PATCH: Overproduction problems (PR#670)

[David Pfitzner <dwpfitzner@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joona Kiiski <zamar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

> a) I'm building settler (38/40). Then I decide to build a temple instead. If
> I
> change it directly I lose 19 shields. But if change it to warrior (38/10),
> press turn done and after that change production to temple (28/10), and after
> that disband the warrior I lose only 5 shields! 
> 
> b) I'm building Stock exchange (140/160) and then I think hmm... in fact I'd
> like to build armors instead. I change the production to barracks (no
> penalty) 
> and on next turn I change production to armors, no penalty is added (100/80).
> If I think I don't need barracks, I can sell it!
> 
> c) One more way to "cheat": I start building wonder which somebody else is
> soon going to finish. I continue building it until I find advanced flight. 
> Production may be something like (1200/300). After I've find advanced flight
> I build a cheap wonder (300). Then I start building bombers (900 shields
> without any penalty!). I get them really fast!! (1/turn)

Good examples.  I think this is clearly an unintended loophole.

> If you agree with me that this kind of behaviour is totally against the
> spirit
> of Civ2, please put this patch in CVS. In Civ2 you lose all shields which are
> over the limit, but I think that 50 per cent penalty is enough. That's the
> same
> penalty when you for example change production from temple to warrior.

To back up, the difference from Civ2 is deliberate, to try to reduce
the advantages of micromanagement.  That is, if excess production is
lost, then it is advantagous to adjust workers etc when near 
completion to reduce any excess, for example optimising to produce
more trade instead.  Then optimising again after completion etc, etc.

It think it used to be that the change-production-type penalty was 
always applied (eg, even if you change and change back), but currently 
there is no penalty if you completed production the previous turn.
I would say this "loophole" is the main "cause" of the problems in 
your examples.

I _guess_ the motivation for this loophole is that unless you "change 
your mind" while building something, it means there is never any loss, 
and thus you never have to micro-manage workers to reduce loss.

Please explain in words the effect of your patch.  That is, what
would the documentation say?  Do you always lose half of any excess?
In that case, micro-management is again encouraged, but with 
reduced benefit than if everything is lost.

On the other hand if the change-production-penalty is always applied,
then it is advantagous to micromanage when nearing completion when 
you intend to change production type.  Hmmm...

Really the main problem in the examples is the occurence of a big 
over-production by changing to something with small cost, whereas
the micromanagement issue is about usually-small over-productions 
which occur during the normal course of producing things.  So maybe
there is some middle ground between rewarding micromanagement and
loopholes in the examples, but its not clear to me right now...

(Maybe another way to look at it is that _any_ production change,
even within a category, should have a penalty, which would make some
logical sense, but be too substantial a change to really do.)

-- David


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/