Building nukes makes you rate *lower* on the power chart, because the
power factor ignores nukes. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Items, ships, planes and land units all contribute to the power
factor, which determines position on the power chart.
Items are worth
amount * item value * (0.5 + nation tech level / 1000.0)
The item values aren't quite right: producing stuff can *hurt* your
position on the power chart. Food, uw and rads are worth nothng.
Reduce the value of oil, and give rads the same value as oil. Tweak
value of iron and oil products so that production's power change is
roughly zero around p.e. 0.9 (tech 110), except for construction
materials, where it's zero at p.e. 0.5 (tech 0). Construction
materials become less valuable, shells, guns and petrol become more
valuable. Increase value of bars to roughly match the other changes.
It may still be too low. Halve the value of civilians, and give the
other half to uw. Results:
old new change
civ 100 50 / 2
mil 100 100
shell 80 125 * 1.5625
gun 400 950 * 2.375
pet 2 7 * 3.5
iron 10 10
dust 200 200
bar 1000 2500 * 2.5
food 0 0
oil 100 50 / 2
lcm 100 20 / 5
hcm 200 40 / 5
uw 0 50 new
rad 0 50 new
Ships, planes and land units are worth
base value * effic/100.0 * (0.5 + unit tech level / 1000.0)
For ships and land units, the base value is
lcm/5.0 + hcm/5.0
Build cost is ignored, but lcms are valued twice as much "loose" ones
(before this commit). Therefore, building stuff can change your
position on the power chart in both directions, depending on the type
of build.
For planes, the base value is
20 * (0.5 + nation tech level / 1000.0)
Build cost and materials are ignored, and tech is squared. This
is plainly absurd.
Unify to
(power value of money and materials to build) * effic/100.0
This formula is chosen so that building stuff doesn't change your
power factor. Bonus: it doesn't assume anything about possible build
materials.
For ships and land units, factoring in build cost overcompensates the
discounted value of construction materials more often than not.
Noteworthy changes for the stock game:
ship type old new change
ss slave ship 20 5.8 * 0.29 largest decrease
cs cargo ship 20 7.8 * 0.39
ts trade ship 60 25.5 * 0.42
frg frigate 12 7.8 * 0.65
bb battleship 24 21.8 * 0.91
cal light carrier 22 30.4 * 1.38
can nuc carrier 30 84.6 * 2.82 largest increase
land unit type old new change
hat hvy artillery 12 9.6 * 0.8 largest decrease
linf light infantry 2.4 3.32 * 1.38
cav cavalry 3 5.4 * 1.8
inf infantry 3 5.4 * 1.8
lar lt armor 3 6.4 * 2.13
com commando 3 15.4 * 5.13
eng engineer 3 30.4 * 10.13
meng mech engineer 3 45.4 * 15.13 largest increase
For planes, the power value change depends on the type. Below a
certain nation tech level, planes of this type become more valuable,
above less.
For the stock game, planes costing at most $1000 become less valuable
at any nation tech level that can build them, and planes costing at
least $1800 become more valuable at any practical tech level,
i.e. under 400. Noteworthy planes:
plane type new
sam Sea Sparrow 2.1 least valuable
f2 P-51 Mustang 4.34
lb TBD-1 Devastator 5.92
jf1 F-4 Phantom 10.6
tr C-56 Lodestar 10.78
jt C-141 Starlifter 15.86
jhb B-52 Strato-Fortress 33.54
ss KH-7 spysat 41.2 most valuable
The old value is a flat 12 at nation tech level 100, 15 at tech level
250, and 18 at tech level 400.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Actual abilities of ships, planes and land units depend almost
completely on the individual unit's tech, not the nation's tech. The
power factor should reflect that.
The power value of a unit is of the form
base value * (20 + nation's tech level) / 500
Change it to
base value * (20 + unit's tech level) / 500
Note that a plane's base value still depends on the nation's tech
level. This commit merely makes the absurdity stand out a bit more.
To be fixed later.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
In the old times, power didn't consider tech at all. Chainsaw's
option NEWPOWER (mandatory since v4.2.14, on by default before)
changed this dramatically: the power factor gets multiplied by
max(1, tech) / 500.
In the early game, small absolute tech differences yield large power
factor differences. For instance, if country A has tech level 10, and
B has 5, then A gets a factor two boost.
As the game progresses, tech differences between viable countries tend
to grow, but only slowly. The influence on power diminishes. For
instance, if C has tech level 270 and D has 240 (quite a respectable
tech lead), then C gets a modest 1.125x boost over D.
Change the factor to (20 + tech) / 500. Now A's advantage is only
1.2, and C's is 1.115.
You might think that's rather low. However, tech is not power unless
you project it, and then it manifests itself as sectors, population
and other stuff power counts.
The same tech term occurs in plane power, except with just tech
instead of max(1, tech) . Change it there as well, for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
If option RES_POP is enabled, the power factor is multiplied by a
"research factor" of 1.0 + maxpop / 10000.0, where maxpop is the
maximum population of a mine sector.
Back when this code was written (Chainsaw 3), all sectors had the same
population limit, so using a mine sector was as good as any. Since
then, it has become configurable, and the stock game has both sector
types with lower (mountains, plains) and with higher (cities)
population limits.
Space for people is worth considering for power, but multiplying total
power by a fudge factor based on the most common sector type's maximum
population is silly. Drop it.
Adjusting each sector's value for maximum population would make more
sense, with and without RES_POP. Perhaps later.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The work required for build and repairs is traditionally a function of
build materials: 20 + lcm + 2*hcm for ships, planes and land units,
and (lcm + 2*hcm + oil + rad)/5 for nukes. Make it independently
configurable instead, via new ship-chr, plane-chr, land-chr, nuke-chr
selector bwork, backed by new struct mchrstr member m_bwork, struct
plchrstr member pl_bwork, struct lchrstr member l_bwork, struct
nchrstr member n_bwork. Keep the required work exactly the same for
now.
Clients that compute work from materials need to be updated. Easy,
since build work is now exposed in xdump.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Commit eb1512d (v4.3.6) added the '=' if stopped before efficiency.
Commit 016249c (v4.3.6) changed it to '!' without updating info ship,
plane, land, nuke.
Reported-by: Harald Katzer
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The cost of firing naval guns is 15 mobility with option NOMOBCOST
disabled. Mobility.t is correct.
Fix Options.t not to claim submarines pay half the sector movement
cost when NOMOBCOST is enabled.
Fix fire.t not to claim ships pay half the sector movement cost when
NOMOBCOST is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Don't list options separately for major server versions. It's only of
historical interest, which "info History" satisfies.
Make it a list (.L) instead of preformatted text (.nf).
Fix up so the option explanations are full sentences, starting with a
capital letter and ending with a period.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Claims the victim of a torpedo attack gets told the attacking ship's
number. This hasn't been the case for submarines since Empire 2.3.
Recent commits again reveal the attacking submarine's number, but only
when it gets hit by return fire. Update info accordingly.
Reported-by: Neeraj Jain <thisisfranz@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
It's redundant; retreat path 'h' cancels orders just fine. Document
that instead. 'c' still works, and I don't plan to break it as long
as it doesn't get in the way, which seems unlikely.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Optional arguments can save typing. Mandatory arguments are more
easily discoverable: just run the command and answer its prompts.
Empire traditionally uses optional arguments only for expert features.
Consider mission:
[0:640] Command : mission
Ship, plane or land unit (p,sh,la)? s
ship(s)? 0
Mission (int, sup, osup, dsup, esc, res, air, query, clear)? int
operations point? .
frg frigate Early Bird(#0) on an interdiction mission, centered on 21,-3, radius 0
1 ship
Compare retreat:
[0:638] Command : retreat
ship(s)? 0
shp# ship type x,y fl path as flt? flags
0 frg frigate 21,-3
1 ship
Arguments are not discoverable this way.
Change retreat to work like mission: make the second argument
mandatory, and if it's 'q', show retreat orders, else treat it as path
and ask for conditions:
[0:637] Command : retreat
ship(s)? 0
Retreat path, or q to query? jj
Retreat conditions ('?' to list available ones)? i
shp# ship type x,y fl path as flt? flags
0 frg frigate 21,-3 jj i
1 ship
To reduce smart client and script breakage, keep retreat with one
argument working as before, but print a deprecation warning.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
.SY claims all arguments are individually optional. Fix that, and
clarify that omitting the optional arguments shows current orders.
Don't complicate syntax with <SECTS>, <SHIP/FLEET> covers sectors.
The two pages are identical apart from header and footer. They
mention land units briefly, then explain ship retreat. Lazy. Drop
the land unit mention from "info retreat", and rewrite "info lretreat"
for land units.
Update example output for current code.
Don't shout retreat conditions. We've always accepted both lower and
upper case conditions. Help has been advertising lower case since
commit bb5dfd8, v4.3.16.
While there, fix a few misspellings and such.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Commit 18ee9a2f (v4.2.21) and commit 18ee9a2f (v4.3.16) updated only
info/retreat.t, and missed info/lretreat.t.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Documented in commit dc41544, v4.3.16. It actually worked only at the
condition prompt then. No longer recognized elsewhere since commit
c699949. The documentation is now misleading. Simply drop it; the
prompt points out how to get help,
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
It's not 100 flat, it's 20 per interdicted land unit. It's been that
way since Empire 2 at least.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Don't claim the lowest-numbered land unit is always the leader.
Reword the explanation of the prompt.
Update example output for current code.
Clarify that a destination sector is also accepted interactively, not
just on the command line.
Missiles interdict just the valuable ships, unlike other interdiction.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Don't claim the army stops when the leader stops.
Don't claim the lowest-numbered land unit is always the leader.
The prompt shows minimum mobility, not leader mobility.
Clarify that a destination sector is also accepted interactively, not
just on the command line. Fix the example output, and update for
current code.
Replace incorrect landmine hit chance formula by a reference to "info
Hitchance".
Drop incorrect damage limit for missile interdiction, rely on the
reference to "info mission" instead.
The hit chance of missiles and pin-bombers interdicting land units is
not 100%, but depends on the marching land unit that is easiest to hit.
Clarify that interdiction damage is spread evenly among the marching
land units.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The capability to navigate ships spread over several sectors is
obscure and rarely useful. Accidental use is probably more frequent
than intentional use. Issues:
* Interactive prompts show only the flagship's position, and give no
clue that some ships are actually elsewhere.
* Path finding is supported only when all navigating ships are in
the same sector.
* Interdiction becomes rather complex. For each movement, every
sector entered is interdicted independently. This means the same
fort, ship, land unit or plane can interdict multiple times.
Interdiction order depends on the order the code examines
ships. which the player can control. This is all pretty much
undocumented.
* Complicates the code and its maintenance. Multiplies the number of
test cases needed to cover navigate.
I feel we're better off without this feature.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The capability to march land units spread over several sectors is
obscure and rarely useful. Accidental use is probably more frequent
than intentional use. Issues:
* Interactive prompts show only the leader's position, and give no
clue that some land units are actually elsewhere.
* Path finding is supported only when all marching land units are in
the same sector.
* In each step, the bmap is updated for the leader's radar. The bmap
is not updated around other marching land units. Already odd when
all units are in the leader's sector, and odder still when some are
elsewhere.
* Interdiction becomes rather complex. For each movement, every
sector entered is interdicted independently. This means the same
ship, land unit or plane can interdict multiple times. Interdiction
order depends on the order the code examines land units. which the
player can control. This is all pretty much undocumented.
* Complicates the code and its maintenance. Multiplies the number of
test cases needed to cover march.
I feel we're better off without this feature.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
SAIL has issues:
* Sail orders are executed at the update. Crafty players can use them
to get around the update window.
* The route is fixed at command time. You can't let the update find
the best route, like it does for distribution.
* The info pages documenting it amount to almost 100 non-blank lines
formatted. They claim you can follow friendly ships. This is
wrong. They also show incorrect follow syntax. Unlikely to be the
only errors.
* Few players use it. Makes it a nice hidey-hole for bugs. Here are
two nice ones:
- If follow's second argument is negative, the code attempts to
follow an uninitialized ship. Could well be a remote hole.
- If ship #1 follows #2 follows #3 follows #2, the update goes into
an infinite loop.
* It's more than 500 lines of rather crufty code nobody wants to
touch. Thanks to a big effort in Empire 2, it shares some code with
the navigation command. It still duplicates other navigation code.
The sharing complicates fixing the bugs demonstrated by
navi-march-test.
Reviewing, fixing and testing this mess isn't worth the opportunity
cost. Remove it instead. Drop commands follow, mquota, sail and
unsail. Drop ship selectors mquota, path, follow.
struct shpstr shrinks some more, on my system from 160 to 120 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The autonavigation feature has issues:
* Autonavigation orders are executed at the update. Crafty players
can use them to get around the update window.
* Usability is poor:
- The order command is overly complex, not least because it can do
five different things: clear, suspend, resume, declare route, set
cargo levels.
- Unlike every other command involving movement, order does not let
you specify routes, only destination sectors.
- Setting cargo levels can silently swap start and end point of a
circular route, because "this keeps the load_it() procedure
happy". Maybe it does, but it surely keeps players confused.
- Setting "start" cargo levels actually sets the "end" levels, and
vice versa. Has always been broken that way.
- Predicting what exactly autonavigation will do at the update isn't
easy.
* The info pages documenting it amount to almost 400 non-blank lines
formatted. They claim only merchant ships can be given orders.
This is wrong. Unlikely to be the only error.
* Few players use it, and its workings at the update a fairly opaque.
Makes it a nice hidey-hole for bugs. Here are two:
- Unlike the scuttle command, autonavigation happily scuttles trade
ships while they're on the trading block.
- Unlike the load command, autonavigation can load in friendly and
allied sectors.
* It's more than 700 lines of rather crufty code nobody wants to
touch. Thanks to a big effort in Empire 2, it shares code with the
navigation command. It still duplicates load code. The sharing
complicates fixing the bugs demonstrated by navi-march-test.
Reviewing, fixing and testing this mess isn't worth the opportunity
cost. Remove it instead. Drop commands order, qorder and sorder.
Drop ship selectors xstart, xend, ystart, yend, cargostart, cargoend,
amtstart, amtend, autonav.
xdump ship sheds almost half its columns. struct shpstr shrinks, on
my system from 200 to 160 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
TREATIES has issues:
* Treaties can cover attack, assault, paradrop, board, lboard, fire,
build (s|p|l|n) and enlist, but not bomb, launch, torpedo and
enlistment centers.
* Usability is very poor. While a treaty is in effect, every player
action that violates a treaty condition triggers a prompt like this:
This action is in contravention of treaty #0 (with Curmudgeon)
Do you wish to go ahead anyway? [yn]
If you decline, the action is not executed. If you accept, it is.
In both cases, your decision is reported in the news.
You cannot get rid of these prompts until the treaty expires.
* Virtually nobody uses them.
* Virtually unused code is buggy code. There is at least one race
condition: multifire() reads the firing sector, ship or land unit
before the treaty prompt, and writes it back after, triggering a
generation oops. Any updates made by other threads while trechk()
waits for input are wiped out, triggering a seqno mismatch oops.
* The treaty prompts could confuse smart clients that aren't prepared
for them. WinACE isn't, but is reported to work anyway at least
common usage. Ron Koenderink (the WinACE maintainer) suspects there
could be a few situations where it will fail.
This feature is not earning its keep. Remove it. Drop command
treaty, consider treaty, offer treaty, xdump treaty, reject treaties.
Output of accept changed, obviously.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
