[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Comments on CMA 2.6

[Christian Knoke <ChrisK@xxxxxxxx>]

Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2001 14:41 schrieb Raahul Kumar:
> --- Christian Knoke <ChrisK@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2001 12:35 schrieb Raahul Kumar:
> > > --- Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Chrisian Knoke wrote:

> > > > > A ratio 2:3 will give you the same result as 3:4 or 4:5, if
> > > > > all other stats are zero. I think this is more transparent
> > > > > for the player.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so. In my solution 2:3 would yield the same as
> > > > 4:6 or 6:9. Does anybody have a third opinion?
> > >
> > > Raimar is obviously correct. In fact a ration of 3:4 or 4:5 is
> > > 0.75 and 0.8 respectively. They're not even the same as each
> > > other.
> >
> > Well, you missed the point, that there is a logarithmic scale. So
> > this is about a comfortable user interface.
> >
> > With my suggestion you can have less steps (six) within the slider,
> > and a finer adjustment at the same time.
>
> I'll give you the fewer steps. It is obvious that you can remove
> ratios like 6:9 8:12 etc if you have a 2:3 ratio. Your idea that
> a ratio of 3:4 and 4:5 is equivalent is one I dislike. I like being
> able to micromanage.

The CMA is there to avoid micromanagement. You *can* have fine grained
control about the city's production. Example (waging war):

    no food loss (surplus = 0),
    food=0 (you want no growth), 
    prod=5 (highest weight for shields = 7.4), 
    gold=2 (small weight because money can still buy things = 1.6)
    science= 1 (as a tiebreaker)
    luxury=0 (not neccessary since the city is automagically kept in peace)
    trade=0 (is overwritten by gold=2 (Raimar, is this correct?))

This leeds you to a 4.6:1 ratio for shields vs. gold, which can
produce a lot of units, and still have some gold to buy some.
Everything else is discarded, except of science, which is preferred
whithout affecting shields or gold.

The above is based on these slider values:

(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) mapped to the weights (0, 1, 1600, 2700, 4500, 7400)

according weight = e ^ (( n - 1) / 2)   for n > 1

From a previous post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to my previuos posts: 0 is to ignore a stat, 1 is the base
factor for other stats, 7.4 is a good approximation to the maximum
ratio probably ever needed to weight a very important stat over other
stats (e.g. production vs. gold when a bomber is being produced), and
1.6, 2.7, and 4.5 are the steps inbetween, giving a total of 6 steps
which gives reasonable control and is still handy. pfhhh
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian

-- 
* Christian Knoke                           +49 4852 92248 *
* D-25541 Brunsbuettel                  Wurtleutetweute 49 *
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.