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

[Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 09:56:41PM -0400, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
> At 09:45 PM 02/06/25 -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> >Bomber                     Stealth Bomber
> >
> >build_cost    = 120        build_cost    = 160    + 33%
> >attack        = 12         attack        = 14     + 17%
> >defense       = 1          defense       = 5      + 400%
> >hitpoints     = 20         hitpoints     = 20
> >firepower     = 2          firepower     = 2
> >move_rate     = 8          move_rate     = 12     + 50%

So you get +17% attack, +400% defense and +50% speed for only 33% more
cost.

> Of course this implies that your attack power formula actually 
> means something rather than being one of many heuristic formulae
> none of which describes reality in any accurate way :-).
> 
> Now my formula of the moment includes defence and in this world 
> one would never want regular fighters ...
>   power formula = defence * hitpoints + attack * firepower
> 
> And if you don't like this formula, I can dream up 20 others with
> some sort of feeble justification for their efficacy, but basically
> all showing that your choice gives the wrong answer. Tomorrow I can
> join your side and produce 20 in support :-).

I agree with Ross here. You can assign a weight to each of the stats
(for example don't consider the speed improvement at all). But than
you have to justify these weights. And this should be a lot better
than something like "but the current code does it so".

I would also say that there can't be a single set of weights since the
strategy of the players differ much.

However this doesn't mean that the change shouldn't be made. Only that
the reason you give isn't a good one.

Attached is a patch and the output which lists all changes which are
caused by upgrading.

If we say that an upgrade is ok if "build_cost_change >=
MIN(other_changes)" (which is a conservative assumption) than this is
the list of problems:

 Legion -> Musketeers
             build_cost:  40  -- >   30  -25%
        attack_strength:   4  -- >    3  -25%
       defense_strength:   2  -- >    3  +50%
                     hp:  10  -- >   20  +100%

We may not want that the attack_strength is reduced even is the
build_cost is also reduced by the same amount. This wouldn't be a
problem if we would have real stack-vs-stack fight. But for the
current code it may be a disadvantage because you can only enter the
fight with one unit.
 
 Cavalry -> Armor
             build_cost:  60  -- >   80  +33%
        attack_strength:   8  -- >   10  +25%
       defense_strength:   3  -- >    5  +66%
              move_rate:   6  -- >    9  +50%
                     hp:  20  -- >   30  +50%
 
 Artillery -> Howitzer
             build_cost:  50  -- >   70  +40%
        attack_strength:  10  -- >   12  +20%
       defense_strength:   1  -- >    2  +100%
              move_rate:   3  -- >    6  +100%
                     hp:  20  -- >   30  +50%
                  flags: +IgWall
 
 Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
             build_cost: 120  -- >  160  +33%
        attack_strength:  12  -- >   14  +16%
       defense_strength:   1  -- >    5  +400%
              move_rate:  24  -- >   36  +50%

In the three above the attack_strength doesn't grow as much as the
build_cost grow. However in all the cases we get other bonuses.
 
 Frigate -> Ironclad
             build_cost:  50  -- >   60  +20%
       defense_strength:   2  -- >    4  +100%
     transport_capacity:   2  -- >    0  -9999%
                     hp:  20  -- >   30  +50%
 
Here we loose all transport_capacity.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "That's fundamental game play!  My main enemy is *ALWAYS* fighting 
  a 4-front war.  I make sure of it!"
    -- Tony Stuckey, freeciv-dev

out
Description: Text document

show_upgrade.diff
Description: Text document