Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: June 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Corruption Handling - Possible bug?
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Corruption Handling - Possible bug?

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Corruption Handling - Possible bug?
From: Ben Webb <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:37 +0100

On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:32:50AM +0200, Per I Mathisen wrote:
> I am not so sure. This way courthose would always give you 50% of your
> trade as income. I don't remember very well but was this how it was done
> in civ2? At least, it is not this way in civ3. And this change makes
> corruption _a lot_ less effective.
> 
> So I will not agree to classify this as a "bug fix" (even if it makes us
> more civ2 compatible).
> 
> Ben, how is this solved for generalised improvements?

Er, it's not really. ;) The relevant part of the impr-gen patch to
common/city.c is as below:-

-  if (city_got_building(pcity, B_COURTHOUSE) ||
-      city_got_building(pcity, B_PALACE)) val /= 2;
+  /* Add modifiers from generalised improvements */
+  corruptadj = pcity->corruptadj * pcity->corruptpct / 100;
+  val = val * corruptadj / 100;

i.e. I haven't messed with the algorithm at all - just replaced the
current Courthouse/Palace effect with a more general effect.

        Ben
-- 
ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://bellatrix.pcl.ox.ac.uk/~ben/
"The vocabulary of Bradshaw is nervous and terse, but limited."
        - 'The Valley of Fear', Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]