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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

<snip> 
> This is a good question. _If_ we assume that
> "(a->{attack,defense}_strength * a->firepower * a->hp)/a->build_cost"
> defines the raw military value of a unit you get the attached list
> (the values are multiplied by 100 to avoid floats). First value is
> att/cost (a->attack_strength * a->firepower *
> a->hp)/a->build_cost. Second value is def/cost (a->defense_strength *
> a->firepower * a->hp)/a->build_cost. Third is the sum.
> 
> You can now also look at the changes in these values in the case of
> upgrading. So for example the Warriors -> Pikemen change is a bad move
> based on the all/cost value but you get the Pikeman flag. You also see
> that the upgrading to Musketeers and Cannon is a good move.
> 
> And last but not least you see that:
> 
>  Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
>              build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
>         attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    5  +400%
>               move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
>                att/cost:  400 -- >  350   -12%
>                def/cost:   33 -- >  125  +278%
>                all/cost:  433 -- >  475    +9%
> 
> in the Stealth Bomber case you only get +9%. To make this a bit more
> sweet I would up the all/cost to just below 600 (similar to the
> Stealth Fighter). Possible solutions are:
> 
>  Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
>              build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
>         attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
>               move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
>               firepower:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                att/cost:  400 -- >  525   +31%
>                def/cost:   33 -- >   37   +12%
>                all/cost:  433 -- >  562   +29%

I prefer the +3 firepower. But I wouldn't object to 20 attack strength.

>  Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
>              build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
>         attack_strength:   12 -- >   20   +66%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    3  +200%
>               move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
>                att/cost:  400 -- >  500   +25%
>                def/cost:   33 -- >   75  +127%
>                all/cost:  433 -- >  575   +32%
> 
> > 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.
> 
> From the raw numbers
> 
>             Destroyer:  200 +  200 =  400
>               Cruiser:  450 +  450 =  900
>         AEGIS Cruiser:  480 +  480 =  960
>            Battleship:  600 +  600 = 1200
>             Submarine: 1000 +  200 = 1200
> 
> Battleship and Submarine are equal priced. It may be possible to
> change the attack of Submarines from 10 to 14 and the cost from 60 to
> 80.

They shouldn't be equal. I want submarines to have an advantage destroying
battleships. This addresses the subs never get built problem. And to stop
subs from destroying every other naval unit, there should be one naval unit
that can beat subs easily.

Basically, an ratio of 1400 would be better. Subs can only attack naval units.
So make them very powerful against all naval units except their one arch enemy,
the destroyer.

I refer you to your own history, Raimar ;). No German needs to be told about
how dangerous a sub can be.
 
> > 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.
> 
> ??

Currently, the Freeciv pop never builds subs. It's always
battleships/transports. Occasionally you'll see a carrier, but hardly ever.

> > 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.
> 
> See above.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I haven't a position about this yet.
> 
>       Raimar
> 
> -- 
>  email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  "From what I am reading Win98 and NT5.0 will be getting rid of all that
>   crap anyway. Seems that Microsoft has invented something called TCP/IP and
>   another really revolutionary concept called DNS that eliminates the
>   netbios crap too. All that arping from browsers is going to go away.
>   I also hear rumors that they are on the verge of breakthrough discoveries
>   called NFS, and LPD too. Given enough time and money, they might
>   eventually invent Unix."
>     -- George Bonser in linux-kernel
> >              Settlers:    0 +   50 =   50  
>             Engineers:    0 +  100 =  100  
>              Warriors:  100 +  100 =  200  
>               Phalanx:   50 +  100 =  150  
>               Archers:  100 +   66 =  166  
>                Legion:  100 +   50 =  150  
>               Pikemen:   50 +  100 =  150  
>            Musketeers:  200 +  200 =  400  
>              Fanatics:  400 +  400 =  800  
>              Partisan:  160 +  160 =  320  
>         Alpine Troops:  200 +  200 =  400  
>              Riflemen:  250 +  200 =  450  
>               Marines:  266 +  166 =  432  
>          Paratroopers:  200 +  133 =  333  
>            Mech. Inf.:  360 +  360 =  720  
>              Horsemen:  100 +   50 =  150  
>               Chariot:  100 +   33 =  133  
>             Elephants:  100 +   25 =  125  
>             Crusaders:  125 +   25 =  150  
>               Knights:  100 +   50 =  150  
>              Dragoons:  200 +   80 =  280  
>               Cavalry:  266 +  100 =  366  
>                 Armor:  375 +  187 =  562  
>              Catapult:  150 +   25 =  175  
>                Cannon:  400 +   50 =  450  
>             Artillery:  800 +   80 =  880  
>              Howitzer: 1028 +  171 = 1199  
>               Fighter:  266 +  200 =  466  
>                Bomber:  400 +   33 =  433  
>            Helicopter:  400 +  120 =  520  
>       Stealth Fighter:  400 +  200 =  600  
>        Stealth Bomber:  350 +  125 =  475  
>               Trireme:   25 +   25 =   50  
>               Caravel:   50 +   25 =   75  
>               Galleon:    0 +  100 =  100  
>               Frigate:  160 +   80 =  240  
>              Ironclad:  200 +  200 =  400  
>             Destroyer:  200 +  200 =  400  
>               Cruiser:  450 +  450 =  900  
>         AEGIS Cruiser:  480 +  480 =  960  
>            Battleship:  600 +  600 = 1200  
>             Submarine: 1000 +  200 = 1200  
>               Carrier:   50 +  450 =  500  
>             Transport:    0 +  180 =  180  
>        Cruise Missile:  900 +    0 =  900  
>               Nuclear:  618 +    0 =  618  
>              Diplomat:    0 +    0 =    0  
>                   Spy:    0 +    0 =    0  
>               Caravan:    0 +   20 =   20  
>               Freight:    0 +   20 =   20  
>              Explorer:    0 +   33 =   33  
>      Barbarian Leader:    0 +    0 =    0  


I thought this bug was fixed. Is it still possible in CVS to go from Barb
Leader to Settler?

> >  Settlers -> Engineers
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>               move_rate:    3 -- >    6  +100%
>                   flags: +Transform
>                att/cost:    0 -- >    0    +0%
>                def/cost:   50 -- >  100  +100%
>                all/cost:   50 -- >  100  +100%

Different ranking system for units like Caravan/Diplo/Settlers. We omit these
units from the discussion.

>  Warriors -> Pikemen
>              build_cost:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>                   flags: +Pikemen
>                att/cost:  100 -- >   50   -50%
>                def/cost:  100 -- >  100    +0%
>                all/cost:  200 -- >  150   -25%

Hmm. A bit of a surprise.

>  Phalanx -> Pikemen
>                   flags: +Pikemen
>                att/cost:   50 -- >   50    +0%
>                def/cost:  100 -- >  100    +0%
>                all/cost:  150 -- >  150    +0%
>  
>  Archers -> Musketeers
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                att/cost:  100 -- >  200  +100%
>                def/cost:   66 -- >  200  +203%
>                all/cost:  166 -- >  400  +140%
>  
>  Legion -> Musketeers
>              build_cost:   40 -- >   30   -25%
>         attack_strength:    4 -- >    3   -25%
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                att/cost:  100 -- >  200  +100%
>                def/cost:   50 -- >  200  +300%
>                all/cost:  150 -- >  400  +166%
>  
>  Pikemen -> Musketeers
>              build_cost:   20 -- >   30   +50%
>         attack_strength:    1 -- >    3  +200%
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                   flags: -Pikemen
>                att/cost:   50 -- >  200  +300%
>                def/cost:  100 -- >  200  +100%
>                all/cost:  150 -- >  400  +166%
>  
>  Musketeers -> Riflemen
>              build_cost:   30 -- >   40   +33%
>         attack_strength:    3 -- >    5   +66%
>        defense_strength:    3 -- >    4   +33%
>                att/cost:  200 -- >  250   +25%
>                def/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
>                all/cost:  400 -- >  450   +12%

Is this right? Surely riflemen are better value than this. 
  
>  Horsemen -> Knights
>              build_cost:   20 -- >   40  +100%
>         attack_strength:    2 -- >    4  +100%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>                att/cost:  100 -- >  100    +0%
>                def/cost:   50 -- >   50    +0%
>                all/cost:  150 -- >  150    +0%

So horsemen and knights are equivalent. This is a very useful tip.
  
>  Chariot -> Knights
>              build_cost:   30 -- >   40   +33%
>         attack_strength:    3 -- >    4   +33%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>                att/cost:  100 -- >  100    +0%
>                def/cost:   33 -- >   50   +51%
>                all/cost:  133 -- >  150   +12%
>  
>  Knights -> Dragoons
>              build_cost:   40 -- >   50   +25%
>         attack_strength:    4 -- >    5   +25%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                att/cost:  100 -- >  200  +100%
>                def/cost:   50 -- >   80   +60%
>                all/cost:  150 -- >  280   +86%
>  
>  Dragoons -> Cavalry
>              build_cost:   50 -- >   60   +20%
>         attack_strength:    5 -- >    8   +60%
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                   flags: -Horse
>                att/cost:  200 -- >  266   +33%
>                def/cost:   80 -- >  100   +25%
>                all/cost:  280 -- >  366   +30%
>  
>  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%
>                att/cost:  266 -- >  375   +40%
>                def/cost:  100 -- >  187   +87%
>                all/cost:  366 -- >  562   +53%
>  
>  Catapult -> Cannon
>         attack_strength:    6 -- >    8   +33%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                att/cost:  150 -- >  400  +166%
>                def/cost:   25 -- >   50  +100%
>                all/cost:  175 -- >  450  +157%
>  
>  Cannon -> Artillery
>              build_cost:   40 -- >   50   +25%
>         attack_strength:    8 -- >   10   +25%
>               firepower:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>                att/cost:  400 -- >  800  +100%
>                def/cost:   50 -- >   80   +60%
>                all/cost:  450 -- >  880   +95%
>  
>  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
>                att/cost:  800 -- > 1028   +28%
>                def/cost:   80 -- >  171  +113%
>                all/cost:  880 -- > 1199   +36%

Every upgrade to an artillery unit is worth it. 

>  Fighter -> Stealth Fighter
>              build_cost:   60 -- >   80   +33%
>         attack_strength:    4 -- >    8  +100%
>        defense_strength:    3 -- >    4   +33%
>               move_rate:   30 -- >   42   +40%
>                att/cost:  266 -- >  400   +50%
>                def/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
>                all/cost:  466 -- >  600   +28%

Now here is a classic case. The reason that a stealth fighter is worth the
upgrade over a normal fighter is because its attack power has been upgraded. If
the defence had been upgraded instead this unit would have been useless.
  
>  Bomber -> Stealth Bomber
>              build_cost:  120 -- >  160   +33%
>         attack_strength:   12 -- >   14   +16%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    5  +400%
>               move_rate:   24 -- >   36   +50%
>                att/cost:  400 -- >  350   -12%
>                def/cost:   33 -- >  125  +278%
>                all/cost:  433 -- >  475    +9%
>  
>  Trireme -> Caravel
>         attack_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>      transport_capacity:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>                   flags: -Trireme
>                att/cost:   25 -- >   50  +100%
>                def/cost:   25 -- >   25    +0%
>                all/cost:   50 -- >   75   +50%

Here there is one big missing factor. The fact that tri-remes can disappear.
This makes them very marginal in value.
 
>  Caravel -> Galleon
>         attack_strength:    2 -- >    0  -9999%
>        defense_strength:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>               move_rate:    9 -- >   12   +33%
>      transport_capacity:    3 -- >    4   +33%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                att/cost:   50 -- >    0    +0%
>                def/cost:   25 -- >  100  +300%
>                all/cost:   75 -- >  100   +33%
>  
>  Galleon -> Transport
>              build_cost:   40 -- >   50   +25%
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    3   +50%
>               move_rate:   12 -- >   15   +25%
>            vision_range:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>      transport_capacity:    4 -- >    8  +100%
>                      hp:   20 -- >   30   +50%
>                att/cost:    0 -- >    0    +0%
>                def/cost:  100 -- >  180   +80%
>                all/cost:  100 -- >  180   +80%
>  
>  Frigate -> Ironclad
>              build_cost:   50 -- >   60   +20%
>        defense_strength:    2 -- >    4  +100%
>      transport_capacity:    2 -- >    0  -9999%
>                      hp:   20 -- >   30   +50%
>                att/cost:  160 -- >  200   +25%
>                def/cost:   80 -- >  200  +150%
>                all/cost:  240 -- >  400   +66%
>  
>  Ironclad -> Destroyer
>               move_rate:   12 -- >   18   +50%
>            vision_range:    1 -- >    2  +100%
>                att/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
>                def/cost:  200 -- >  200    +0%
>                all/cost:  400 -- >  400    +0%
>  
>  Cruiser -> AEGIS Cruiser
>              build_cost:   80 -- >  100   +25%
>         attack_strength:    6 -- >    8   +33%
>        defense_strength:    6 -- >    8   +33%
>                   flags: +AEGIS
>                att/cost:  450 -- >  480    +6%
>                def/cost:  450 -- >  480    +6%
>                all/cost:  900 -- >  960    +6%

Odd. This can't be right. A 5 times increase in missile and air defence should
be worth more than this?

 
Bug. Barbarians should never be available.

>  Barbarian Leader -> Settlers
>        defense_strength:    0 -- >    1  +9999%
>               move_rate:    6 -- >    3   -50%
>                      hp:   10 -- >   20  +100%
>                   flags: -IgZOC
>                   flags: +Settlers
>                   flags: +Airbase
>                   flags: +Cities
>                   flags: +AddToCity
>                att/cost:    0 -- >    0    +0%
>                def/cost:    0 -- >   50    +0%
>                all/cost:    0 -- >   50    +0%
>  

Aloha,
RK.

When you're in command, command. -Admiral Nimitz

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