Commit graph

13 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
2ffd7b948d config: Make work to build sectors configurable
Traditionally, building up 100% takes 100 work.  Make the work to
build configurable, via new sect-chr selector bwork, backed by new
struct dchrstr member d_bwork.  Keep the required work exactly the
same for now.

Tearing down sectors remains four times easier than building.

Clients that hardcode sector build work need to be updated.  Easy,
since build work is now exposed in xdump.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:58 +02:00
bb9619c053 config: Generalize sector build materials storage
Sectors require lcms and hcms to build.  The build materials are
exposed as sect-chr columns lcms, hcms (struct dchrstr members d_lcms,
d_hcms).  They are per point per point of efficiency.  In contrast,
unit build materials are defined for 100%.

We want to define build materials for 100% now, for flexibility and
consistency, and we want to optionally support more build materials in
the future.  Replace d_lcms and d_hcms by array member d_mat[], and
replace selectors lcms and hcms by selectors l_build and h_build.

This is an xdump compatibility break.  To provide the customary grace
period, we'd have to make selectors lcms and hcms virtual instead,
with value l_build / 100 and h_build / 100 rounded up, and deprecate
them.  Deities would have to avoid l_build and h_build values that
aren't multiples of 100 for this to work fully.  But we're not
bothering with maintaining xdump compatibility in this release.

Provide selectors for all other item types, to help clients prepare
for future additional materials.  Use CA_DUMP_ONLY to keep them out of
configuration tables until they actually work.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:58 +02:00
826fcf009b config: Define sector build cost per 100% instead of 1%
Sector build cost is defined by sect-chr column build (struct dchrstr
member d_build).  It's the cost per point of efficiency.  In contrast,
unit build cost is defined for 100%, by ship-chr, plane-chr, land-chr,
nuke-chr column cost.

Switch sectors to cost per 100%, for flexibility and consistency:
replace struct dchrstr member d_build by d_cost, and replace selector
build by selector cost.  Naming it cost for consistency with units is
possible only because the previous commit made the name available.

This is an xdump compatibility break.  To provide the customary grace
period, we'd have to make selector build virtual instead, with value
bcost / 100 rounded up, and deprecate it.  Deities would have to avoid
bcost values that aren't multiples of 100 for this to work fully.  But
we're not bothering with maintaining xdump compatibility in this
release.

With bcost values that aren't multiple of 100, the cost of sector
building may have to be rounded.  On the one hand, the cost of sector
demolition has always been rounded up.  On the other hand, the cost of
producing stuff is rounded randomly.  For now, round up, because
rounding randomly would affect subsequent random rounding, and upset
the smoke test.

Fortunately, show se b already shows build costs per 100%, since
commit 48ff096, v4.3.23.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:58 +02:00
16bf0d28b2 config: Add sect-chr flags, replace cost by flag "deity"
Give sector types capability flags (dchrstr member d_flags), like
ship, plane, land unit and nuke types have.

Member d_cost is effectively a flag since the previous commit.
Replace it by capability flag "deity".  This is an xdump compatibility
break.  To provide the customary grace period, we'd have make selector
cost virtual instead, and deprecate it.  But we're not bothering with
maintaining xdump compatibility in this release.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:58 +02:00
ba2795fbf7 designate: Drop support for designate costing money
Chainsaw 3 added the designate cost along with extra build cost and
materials, and used both to make fortresses expensive.  Unlike build
cost and materials, the cost to designate didn't pass the test of
time: it was set to zero in Empire 2.  Get rid of it.

sect-chr selector cost and struct dchrstr member d_cost have to stay,
because they're still used to configure whether a sector may be
designated by players (see commit 8d792e1).

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:58 +02:00
fce3ecf49a nsc: Expose generalized build materials in xdump and conditionals
Ship, plane, land unit and nuke types require lcms and hcms to build.
Planes also require military, and nukes also require oil and rads.
These build materials are exposed as ship-chr, plane-chr, land-chr,
nuke-chr selectors l_build, h_build, crew, o_build, r_build.

We want to optionally support more build materials in the future.  To
help clients prepare for that, provide selectors for all other item
types.  Use CA_DUMP_ONLY to keep them out of configuration tables
until they actually work.

Rename selector crew to m_build for consistency.  This is an xdump
compatibility break.  We could easily add m_build and deprecate crew
to provide the customary grace period for such breaks.  However, more
xdump changes are coming down the pipe, and for some of them providing
a grace period wouldn't be as easy.  Ron Koenderink assures us WinACE
doesn't need a grace period.  So don't bother with maintaining xdump
compatibility in this release.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:56 +02:00
dc58018cd7 nsc: Replace NSC_EXTRA, NSC_CONST by enum ca_dump
struct castr ca_flag NSC_EXTRA was introduced in commit 3e5c064
(v4.2.18) to permit selectors that aren't in xdump.

Flag NSC_CONST was introduced in commit 445dfec, and put to use in
commit d8422ca (both v4.3.0) to protect certain table elements that
should not be changed in customized tables.

Both flags apply only to xdump, not to other uses of struct castr,
such as conditionals.

Combining NSC_EXTRA | NSC_CONST makes no sense.

I'll shortly need a way to keep selectors out of configuration tables
for conditional selector and xdump command forward compatibility.
Doing it as a third flag would add more nonsensical combinations.

Convert the flags to a separate enum ca_dump instead:

    neither   -> CA_DUMP
    NSC_CONST -> CA_DUMP_CONST
    NSC_EXTRA -> CA_DUMP_NONE

Bonus: unlike the flags it replaces, ca_dump is not visible in xdump.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:56 +02:00
ea5c8a6598 power: Saner power for items, ships, planes and land units
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>
2017-08-06 19:59:55 +02:00
1307a3be6b show: Extend show item to show the power value
Also update "info power" to point to "show item" instead of the
formerly hardcoded values.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:55 +02:00
8e187c566f power: Make item power value configurable
Custom games may want to tweak how items contribute to the power
factor, in particular when products are also customized.  Add ichrstr
member i_power and item selector power for that.

"info power" doesn't reflect this change, yet.  It'll be updated in
the next commit.

The current item power values are problematic.  This will be addressed
later.

For straightforward configurations, reasonable item power values could
perhaps be derived from the configuration automatically.  However,
this is surprisingly hard in the general case: since producing things
should not decrease power, the efficiency of processing products into
other products needs to be considered, and estimating these
efficiencies can be difficult.

Deities can create multiple products making the same item, or multiple
sector types with the same product, but different process efficiency
(sect-chr selector peffic).  Providing differently efficient ways to
make the same item can be reasonable when the sector types involved
have different terrain.  To average them, you'd need to know the map.

The stock game has one example: gold mines produce dust with 100%
process efficiency, mountains produce it with 75%.  Mountains are
normally rare enough not to matter.

Level p.e. (product selectors nlmin, nllag) may have to be considered.
In the stock game, level p.e. variations are minor, because it reaches
0.9 pretty quickly.  In games where it doesn't, you might have to
increase the power value of the product.

Resources (sect selectors min, gold, fert, ocontent, uran) and
resource depletion (product selectors nrndx and nrdep) further
complicate things: you might want to increase the power value of
products depending on unusually scarce resources, but you can't know
what's scarce without understanding the map.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 19:59:45 +02:00
da05484d8b config: Generalize unit build materials storage
Use a single array member instead of multiple scalar members.  Only
the array elements that replace scalar members are can be non-zero for
now.

This is a first step to permitting more build materials.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 14:05:11 +02:00
68c7c08a58 config: Make work to build units independently configurable
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>
2017-08-06 14:04:32 +02:00
9309670544 tests/version: New; exercises config introspection commands
Exercise version, show and xdump, except for xdump of game state.

The xdump part is mostly factored out of tests/smoke.

Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
2017-08-06 14:03:55 +02:00