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

[Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Per I Mathisen wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Tony Stuckey wrote:
> > > have it as a parameter in game.ruleset.
> >
> >       Yes, hard coded limits should be replaced with either #defines or
> > some other mechanism.  IMHO, Corruption distance should be map size
> > dependent.  36 is somewhere close to the max for CivII (32?).
> 
> I agree 36 should be put in a ruleset. I also agree with moving the
> MIN(36, ) test further down, as Davide's patch does, so that 36 is always
> the maximum distance.

Good! So, there are 2 more votes for this reordering...

> 
> > > 2. This is another matter, related to corruption, but less disputable
> > > IMHO. Reading manual, Courthouse effect is to half the corruption in a
> > > city. When the corruption is low, the actual code is behaves correctly,
> > > but when corruption is set to a greater degree and the city is distance
> > > from the capital is big, strange things may happen.
> > > Imagine a city with output of 10 arrows, all of them taken from
> > > corruption. I expect that after having built the courthouse, total
> > > corruption is reduced to 5, but this is not the case if val is MORE than
> > > total trade in the city, as can be easily seen reading the code.
> > > Thus, my proposal is to put an if before courthouse effect, for capping
> > > the val value. (if (val>trade) val=trade;)
> >
> >       This would be a real bug.
> 
> 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.

Well, I've double check civ I and civ II, and both consider courthouse
in the way I pointed out, so that 50% of trade is safe with them.

I agree that this makes courthouse very effective and corruption is
lessened,
but have you done some math to find when such effects became visible?
With default settings, it is hard to trigger the "less than 50% trade"
with a working courthouse, so in reality you're defending a trade
penalization
that happens in very few cases.

And more, in my personal way of gaming, courthouse is not a killer
building,
is there any that build courthouse as a must?

My point is that, it is unnatural to have more than 100% of corruption
in
a city, and thus, reducing by 50% the actual corruption of a city, means
that at least 50% of trade is available.

> 
> So I will not agree to classify this as a "bug fix" (even if it makes us
> more civ2 compatible).

Hmm... Well, as a Civ II point of view, this is a bug fix.
If you say that this is a feature of freeciv, well, I hardly believe
that such an effect was intended.
But, if this means that the change has to wait after 1.13.0 release,
is not a problem, there are more civ II compatibility issues to fix that
are already postponed, not to mention the gen-impr patch, that is badly
needed.

> 
> Ben, how is this solved for generalised improvements?
> 
> Yours,
> Per
> 
> "It is difficult to catch a black cat in a dark room.
> Especially if there is no cat there." - Confucius

        Ciao, Davide