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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 07:35:31PM -0700, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > --- Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > A rebuttal
> > 
> > Ross, Raimar: I offered the attackpower formula in order to avoid a long
> drawn
> > out discussion. It is not an ah-hoc formula, or random, or equivalent to
> any 20
> > other formulas anyone may choose to make up. It analyses the most important
> > parts of the combat effectiveness of any unit. Now I will compare and
> contrast
> > the formula I stole from the AI (This is a first. I never thought I would
> ever
> > defend any piece of code in the AI!) to Raimar's, as the given alternative.
> > 
> > This is an example of why Raimar's weights method is flawed. In order to
> figure
> > out whether a unit is a good attacker or defender, you consider the two
> > seperately. 
> > 
> >
>
===============================================================================
> >   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.
> >
>
================================================================================
> > Here is one example that Raimar's approach and mine clearly differ. 
> > 
> > Musketeer attackpower = 3 * 1 * 20 = 60 
> > Legion                 = 4 * 1 * 10 = 40
> > 
> > Defence power is Musketeer 60 vs Legion 20. A even bigger mismatch.
> > 
> > And the legion's build cost is greater! There is never a time when you
> would
> > want a legion as opposed to a musketeer. Raimar's method introduces extra
> > complexity, ignores the relationship between firepower/hps/attack. And it
> > produces the wrong answers. It also fails to emphasize why musketeers are
> so
> > powerful in the game. My method also answers what would be needed to make
> > legions as powerful as musketeers.
> 
> You are correct. I missed the doubling of the HPs.
> 
> > So to be blunt: Stealth bombers are weak. Bombers are far better attackers
> for the shield cost. Remove the obsolete tags. It makes no sense to "upgrade"
> to a weaker unit. The move rate and defence are irrelevant, because bombers
>are used exclusively in a attacking role. 
> 
> So what about increasing the HPs to 30 and reduce the defense strength
> from 5 to 3?


Ack. My tone seems a bit hostile in the previous email. Accept my apologies.
 
Hmm. Interesting. I am opposed to the hp change. The reason is that it defies
intuition. Stealth Bombers are not very physically tough units. On the other
hand, they deliver a very powerful attack. So I would prefer a firepower or
attack rating increase.

Think of the battleship having 40 hitpoints. That represents the incredible
armour a battleship has.

I want a firepower increase to 3. That would make stealth bombers more powerful
than regular bombers.

14attack * 20hps * 3fp = 840
14attack * 30hps * 2fp = 840

So 3 Stealth would have 2520 attack power vs 4 * (12 * 20 * 2) = 1920. The
stealth bomber would win easily.

hps = hitpoints fp = firepower attack = attack rating of unit


The defence changes I leave to your judgement. Do we want to represent how much
harder a stealth bomber is allegedly to target? If so, leave the defence
unchanged. If not, lower it to 3.

Greg, Per, I would like your comments here. Especially Greg's. He was the one
who pointed out the decided weakness of stealth units.

Raimar: While we are at it, what are the rules for balancing units? I suggest
that we work out some rules for how powerful units should be. I'll suggest a
couple:

No unit should be invulnerable. There should always be at least one unit that
can destroy that unit at a favourable shield ratio. For example, take a
battleship:

There is no unit that can successfully destroy a battleship at a good loss
ratio. Subs should be the unit for the job. They should have an attack rating
that is higher, so that they can kill a battleship. Adjust their shield cost to
80 to compensate for their power. And in turn, destroyers should have a big
advantage against subs. At long last Freeciver's will build something other
than battleships when they have the tech.

Think Scissors, Paper, Rock.


Next: Sometimes units should be far more powerful than the previous generation
of units. Gunpowerder is an excellent example. All units after gunpowder should
be more powerful than the earlier units.

Air units need a boost to their move rate. All air units. How much should the
boost be? I favour an across the board 200% increase in move rate.

Aloha,
RK.

You are welcome to visit the cemetery where famous Russian and Soviet
composers, artists, and writers are buried daily except Thursday. -In the Lobby
of a Moscow Hotel Across from a Russian Orthodox Monastary

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com