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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
