Relations state is relatively bulky: it's a big chunk of struct
natstr, and adds 200 bytes per country to xdump nat.
Relations change rarely. Rewriting it to disk on every nation update
and retransmitting it in every xdump nat is wasteful.
To avoid this waste, move relations state to its own struct relatstr.
This is of course an xdump compatibility break. We're not maintaining
xdump compatibility in this release.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
New struct relatstr is basically empty so far. The next commit will
move relations state from struct natstr to struct relatstr.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Reject state is relatively bulky: it's a big chunk of struct natstr,
and adds almost 200 bytes per country to xdump nat.
Reject state changes rarely. Rewriting it to disk on every nation
update and retransmitting it in every xdump nat is wasteful.
To avoid this waste, move reject state to its own struct rejectstr.
This is of course an xdump compatibility break. We're not maintaining
xdump compatibility in this release.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
New struct rejectstr is basically empty so far. The next commit will
move reject state from struct natstr to struct rejectstr.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Contact state is relatively bulky: it's a big chunk of struct natstr,
and adds almost 200 bytes per country to xdump nat for deities.
Contact changes rarely. Since we avoid unnecessary updates, it
doesn't change at all unless option HIDDEN is enabled. Rewriting it
to disk on every nation update and retransmitting it in every deity
xdump nat is wasteful.
To avoid this waste, move contact state to its own struct contactstr.
This is of course an xdump compatibility break. We're not maintaining
xdump compatibility in this release.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
New struct contactstr is basically empty so far. The next commit will
move contact state from struct natstr to struct contactstr.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
A country must always be in contact of itself when option HIDDEN is
enabled. The code ensures this by establishing contact whenever a
player logs in, in init_nats(). This is not the proper place. Game
state should be initialized in empfile's oninit() callback, in this
case nat_oninit(). Do that, and drop the putcontact() from
init_nats().
Note that option LOSE_CONTACT only affects contact to other countries:
agecontact() doesn't age the country's contact to itself.
Use the opportunity to initialize contact so that getcontact() works
even when HIDDEN is disabled. Just cleanup, it isn't actually called
then.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
makelost() overwrites an existing entry for the same thing, else
creates a new one. It calls findlost() to find existing entries.
findlost() means to look up by coordinates if it's looking for a
sector entry, and by ID if it's looking for a ship, plane, land unit
or nuke entry. It actually does both for sectors. Since callers pass
zero ID for sectors, sector entries always match, so at most one gets
created, and additional ones overwrite it.
Broken since the lost table was introduced in 4.0.7. Fix the flawed
comparison in findlost().
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
People in sectors get plagued, then taxed or paid, then fed. People
on ships and land units get paid, then fed, then plagued. Sectors
were messed up when Empire 3 made the update code work for budget.
Change sectors back to how they worked before Empire 3: move do_feed()
from produce_sect() to prepare_sects(), and delay do_plague() until
after do_feed(). People in sectors now get taxed, paid and fed even
when they die of the plague, just like they do on ships and land
units.
Because do_plague() now runs after populace(), the latter's handling
of people dying off doesn't cover plague anymore. Delay it to the
very end of prepare_sects().
Additionally, move feeding and plaguing from upd_ship(), upd_land() to
prep_ship(), prep_land(), for consistency with sectors.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The update visits sectors in increasing order of country number.
Within a country, it visits in increasing order of sector number,
which is effectively top to bottom, left to right, starting with
absolute 0,0.
The order doesn't actually matter. Before Chainsaw's option BUDGET,
the update simply visited the sectors in sector number order. Go back
to that order, because it's faster. For the update, it's a few
percent in my testing. For budget, it's more than a third.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Ship, plane and land unit repair uses new work, except in sectors
owned by countries with a higher country number.
This inconsistency is an artifact of how the update is sequenced: we
work on countries one after the other. A country's ships, planes and
land units get repaired before higher-numbered countries' sectors
produce. Any ship, plane and land unit repairs in such sectors use
old work instead of new work.
Repair work use changed several times during Empire's history.
In BSD Empire, repairs use old work, because it updates ships and
planes before sectors.
Chainsaw added budget priorities and the budget command as option
BUDGET. Budget priorities let players choose separately for ships,
planes and land units whether to use old or new work for repairs.
The option also changed the update to work on countries one after the
other, presumably to permit a more efficient implementation of the
budget command.
Chainsaw also introduced repairs in foreign sectors under option
ALLYHARBORWORK.
With BUDGET disabled, all repairs still use old work, whether at home
or abroad. With BUDGET enabled, work use of repairs at home depends
on budget priorities, but work use abroad depend on country numbers.
Both options became standard in Empire 2.
Since v4.3.6, repairs at home always use new work (commit 967299a and
commit 520446e).
To make repairs abroad always use new work as well, we need to update
all sectors before any ship repair. This is straightforward: split
the loop over countries between sectors and unit building. For
symmetry, also split it between unit maintenance and sectors.
The budget command is differently broken, and will be fixed next.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
People in sectors first eat, then build the sector, then produce.
People in ships produce, eat, then build.
The starvation command can be off for fishing vessels, because it
doesn't consider the food they produce.
Change ships to match sectors. "Fixes" starvation. Fishing boats and
oil derricks being repaired at sea become a bit more productive.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
prod() duplicates the update's sector production code, except it
computes both output with present materials ("make" output) and output
not limited by lack of materials or production backlog ("max" output).
It also rounds materials consumed up instead of randomly.
Factor prod_output() out of produce() for reuse by prod(). prod()
runs it twice: once for "make" output and once for "max" output.
Test output changes are due to random rounding.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Sector production computes a number of intermediate values, and rounds
many of them. We've tinkered with the rounding a few times. It
currently works as follows.
There are two production efficiencies, both shown by the production
command: sector p.e. (column eff) governs how efficiently work is
converted to units of production, and p.e. (column p.e.) governs how
much product each unit of production yields.
Production is limited by available work, materials and resource
contents. These limits are all rounded down.
Example: if a unit takes 16 work (tech or guns), then 600 work at 100%
sector p.e. can make at most 37 units, rounded down from 600 * 100% /
16 = 37.5. 76 work at 76% sector p.e. can make 3, rounded down from
76 * 76% / 16 = 3.61.
Output is units times p.e. Level output isn't rounded. Item output
is rounded down.
Example: a tech center making 37 units at p.e. 0.6 (edu=20) yields 37
* 0.6 = 22.2 tech (before tech log). 3 units yield 1.8 tech.
Example: a defense plant making 37 units at p.e. 0.6 (tech 35) yields
22 guns (rounded down from 22.2). 3 units yield 1.8g, randomly
rounded.
If item output needs to be adjusted downward (production backlog), the
number of units made is likewise adjusted. It is rounded randomly.
Example: a 100% refinery with 156 work can make 156 units. Its
p.e. at tech 30 is 5.0, so this yields 780p. But if it already has
9500p, it can make only 499 more. That's 99.8 units, rounded randomly
to either 99 or 100.
Materials and money consumed are a multiple of units made. No
rounding there.
Resource depletion depends on units made and is rounded randomly.
Work consumed is units made times work per unit divided by sector
production efficiency. Rounded randomly. Any work left can normally
be used at the next update (it "rolls over").
Example: the tech center making 37 units consumes 37 * 16 / 100% = 592
work, with 8 work left. It also consumes 37d 185o 370l $11100.
Example: the tech center making 3 units consumes 3 * 16 / 76% = 63.2
work, randomly rounded to 63 or 64, with 13 or 12 work left. It also
consumes 3d 15o 30l $900.
Example: the defense plant making 3 units consumes work the same. It
additionally consumes 1o 15l 30h $30 when it makes one gun, and twice
as much when it makes two.
Rounding intermediate values like "units of production" is awkward.
It's better to round only final results. These are item output,
materials consumed, resource depletion and work consumed. Round item
output down, and the rest randomly. Don't round level output (it's a
floating-point value) and money consumed (also floating-point, since
the previous commit).
For item production, this shifts the random variations from number of
products made to materials and work consumed.
Example: the first defense plant again makes 22 guns (now rounded down
from 22.5). The second one now always makes two guns (rounded down
from 3.61 * 0.6 = 2.166) instead of 1.8 randomly rounded.
This is nice, because budget and production can now predict the number
of items made exactly. Before, budget fluctuated randomly just like
the update, and production rounded down.
Note that budget used to be even worse: until commit 6f7c93c
(v4.3.31), we rounded units of production randomly rather than down.
The 100% tech center randomly made 37 or 38 units, which is much more
relevant than random rounding of item output.
Furthermore, work is now fully used both for item and level
production, to the limit permitted by materials and resource contents.
Example: the first tech center now makes 37.5 units, yielding 37.5 *
0.6 = 22.5 tech. It consumes 37.5d 187.5o 375l $11250 and all 600
work (fractions randomly rounded).
Example: the second tech center now makes 3.61 units yielding 1.805
tech, consuming 3.61d 18.05o 36.1l $1083 and all 76 work.
The production command duplicates much of the update's sector
production code, so it needs a matching update. The next commit will
reduce the duplication.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The update tallies income and expenses in full dollars. Each debit or
credit is rounded before it is added to the tally. Different things
are rounded differently. Examples:
* Each sector's military pay is rounded down. In the stock game, 1m
is paid $4.999998, so n mil cost n*$5 -$1, for all practical n. 10m
in one sector cost $49, but spread over ten sectors they cost only
$40.
* Total pay for military in ships and land units is rounded down.
* Each plane's military pay is rounded down (used to be rounded up
except for broke countries until recent commit 2eb08f4). In the
stock game, flight pay is 5 * $4.999998 = $24.99999. For a plane
with n mil, that's n * $25 - $1. Filed under plane maintenance, not
military payroll.
* Each sector's civilian tax is rounded. In the stock game, 1c pays
$0.499998. 10c in one sector pay $5, but spread over ten sectors
they pay nothing.
* An occupied sector's civilian tax is first rounded, then divided by
four and rounded down *boggle*.
* Each sector's uw tax is rounded. In the stock game, 1u pays
$0.106662. 1-4u in one sector pay nothing. 5-14u pay $1.
This is madness. Has always been that way.
Drop the rounding and track money in type double throughout the
update. Round only the final amount, randomly. This is similar to
how commands accumulate a money delta in player->dolcost.
Likewise, tally the subtotals for budget in type double. Display them
rounded to full dollars.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Extend struct budget member bm[] to cover ships, planes and land
units, too.
Plane maintenance changes because pilot pay is now consistently
rounded down. Before it was rounded down for broke countries, else
up. The stock game's pilots earn a little less than $25, and solvent
countries save $1 per plane. The rounding doesn't make much sense
either way. To be be addressed in a later commit.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Traditionally, unused unused available work is discarded at the
update. Since commit d7a054c (v4.2.13), deities can configure (some)
unused work to "roll over", i.e. available work = some unused work +
this update's work.
Not discarding unused work reduces micromanagement incentives.
However, it also leads to unobvious behavior.
For instance, here's the obvious way to build a radar station: move in
enough people to make 200 work. Half of it is available for sector
building, and increases efficiency to 100%. Here's a not-so-obvious
way: move in enough people to make 134 work. 67 will be used to
increase efficiency to 67%. Now move your workers elsewhere. The
unused available work is enough to finish the job at the next update.
Similarly, neighbors could be surprised by sectors building bridges
despite having no visible workers.
Commit 7f4e59f (v4.2.15) let deities limit the amount rolled over:
unused work above rollover_avail_max is discarded. This became the
default with a value of 50 in commit 81a3e4c4, v4.3.31.
Limit it further so that "roll over" can increase the update's work by
no more than half, plus one. The extra point is there so that even a
tiny work force has a chance to eventually eke out the second point of
work needed to increase efficiency.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Rounding work down can lead to a bit of work micromanagement. For
instance, four military on a lonely island accomplish nothing in 60
ETU updates, but five will make one point of work per update. They
can build a 2% harbor in four updates, as long as rollover_avail_max
is at least 3. Six to eight will be no faster.
The people's work used to be rounded randomly until Empire 3's big
effort to make the update code work for budget switched to rounding it
down, perhaps accidentally.
Switch back to rounding randomly, so that players don't have to get it
exactly right. Four military now get to 2% in five updates on
average, five in four, six or seven in three, and so forth.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
buildeff() rounds work and money up. Until recently, fractions could
only occur on tear-down, but with customized costs they can now also
occur on build-up.
The previous commit changed unit building to round money and work
randomly. Before, money was rounded down, and work was rounded up.
Round them randomly for sectors as well, for consistency.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
shiprepair() limits the efficiency gain to how much the workers can
build, rounding randomly. It charges work, money and materials for
the efficiency actually gained, rounding work up, money down, and
materials randomly. Same for planerepair() and landrepair(). Has
always been that way.
If you get lucky with the random rounding, you may get a bit of extra
work done for free.
The budget command runs the update code, and can be off by one due to
different random rounding.
Sector production used to have the same issue, only more serious,
because a single unit of tech production matters much more for the
budget than a single point of unit efficiency gain. I fixed it in
commit 6f7c93c, v4.3.31.
Fix it for unit building the same way: limit efficiency gain to the
amount the workers can produce (no rounding). Work becomes a hard
limit, not subject to random fluctuations. Randomly round work and
money charged for actual gain, like we do for materials. On average,
this charges exactly the work and money that's used.
This lets budget predict how much gets built a bit more accurately.
It's still not exact, as the amount of work available for building
remains slightly random, and the build cost is randomly rounded.
The old rounding of work for ships carries the comment "I didn't use
roundavg here, because I want to penalize the player with a large
number of ships." Likewise for planes. Rounding work up rather than
randomly increases the work cost by 0.5 per ship, plane or land unit
on average. I could keep the penalty by adding 0.5 before random
rounding. Not worth it, since the effect is actually pretty trivial.
Let's examine a fairly extreme case: an airfield with 600 available
work repairing a huge number of lightly damaged planes, say f2 with
81% average efficiency. The old code lets the airfield repair roughly
600 / 6.5 = ~92 planes, the new code 600 / 6 = 100.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Replace the term
power value of materials and cost + 9
by
power value of materials and cost + maximum population / 1000 * 8 + 1
The value of ordinary sectors (maximum population 1000) doesn't
change. The stock game's mountains, plains and bridges are now worth
only 28% as much.
This concludes my tweaking of the power factor for now. I tested it
with data from a real game (Hvy Metal II). The effect is small: #5
overtakes #4, and the lead of #1 over #2 and #3 shrinks some. Closer
analysis finds the following reasons. The game had very expensive big
cities. Valuing them correctly gives countries with many cities a
noticeable boost. Planes are worth less than before, but the
difference is much larger for cheap planes. Big piles of construction
materials are worth much less, and shells, guns and bars are worth
more.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Building sectors can make you rate *lower* on the power chart, because
the power factor treats all sectors the same, regardless of build
materials and cost.
To avoid that, replace the term
efficiency / 10.0
by
(power value of materials + power value of cost + 9)
* efficiency/100.0
The value of ordinary sectors, which take no materials and cost $100,
doesn't change. The stock game's fortress is now worth 80% more due
to its materials and higher cost. The stock game's wilderness is
worth 10% less, because it costs nothing.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
In Empire, even babies work.
neweff and production compute the projected population's work,
discarding fractions.
The update first computes the adults' work (discarding fractions),
then newborns' work (discarding fractions), then adds them together.
Double rounding. Moreover, it uses the old work percentage for the
adults' work, and the new one for the newborns' work. Broken in
Empire 3.
Fix by recomputing work after grow_people(). This is how things
worked before the regression. Also restores a bug: growfood()'s work
use is ignored. Harmless, because fcrate and fgrate are too low for
growfood() to produce anything, and nobody customizes them. Mark
FIXME anyway.
Update test output changes as expected: available work differs in
sectors where double rounding discards work, an in sectors with
changing work percentage.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Tests need repeatable pseudo-random numbers to yield repeatable
results. Commit 73f1ac8 (v4.3.33) reseeds the PRNG with the count of
commands right before executing a command when running_test_suite is
on. This doesn't help the update: whenever update code exercised by a
test is changed to consume fewer or more PRNs, all subsequent users
get different numbers regardless. The ensuing test result changes are
extremely tedious to review.
To address this problem, reseed the PRNG in the update's two most
important loops with the iteration count when running_test_suite.
This way, the effect of perturbing the PRN sequence lasts only until
the next iteration.
There are many more loops, but reseeding in all of them seems
impractical.
Perturbs test results across the board. Hopefully, that'll happen
less frequently now.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
tran_plane() computes a plane's weight from its materials. It
hardcodes lcm weight 1, hcm weight 2, and military weight 0. Use
ichr[].i_lbs instead, which is 1 in the stock game for all three
materials.
While there, support arbitrary materials, even though they aren't yet
possible, just to avoid unnecessary assumptions on possible build
materials.
Since the stock game's planes use fewer military than hcms, they
become up to 15% lighter, except for zep, which becomes 10% heavier.
Missiles use no military and become 20-33% lighter.
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>
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>
With offensive support but no defensive support, there's no empty line
separating the support table from the text that follows. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
"torped" comes from symbol table retreat_flags. Visible in output of
edit, retreat, lretreat and xdump. Tolerable in edit, but player
commands like retreat should really use proper words.
Fixing it in retreat_flags changes xdump output, thus risks breaking
clients. Do it anyway, since no known client recognizes this
particular symbol value.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
unit_move() is too big and has too many paths through its loop.
Maintenance of the (unspoken) loop invariant isn't obvious. In fact,
it isn't maintained on some paths. I found several bugs:
* We check prerequisite conditions for moving before the first move
and around prompts. When a condition becomes wrong on the move,
movement continues all the same until the next prompt. I believe
the only way this can happen is loss of crew due to hitting a mine.
* We cache ships and land units in a list of struct ulist. When a
ship or land unit gets left behind, its node is removed from the
list and freed.
We keep pointer flg pointing to the flagship in that list for
convenience. However, the pointer isn't updated until the next
prompt. It's referenced for automatic radar and all sub-commands
other than the six directions and 'h'. Use after free when such a
sub-command gets processed after a flagship change without a prompt.
Same for land units. For instance, navigating a pair of ships "jh"
where the flagship has no mobility leaves the flagship behind, then
attempts to radar automatically using the ship in the freed list
node. Likewise, marching a similar pair of land units "jl" examines
the land unit in the freed list node to figure out how to look.
* We cache mobility in the same list to support fractional mobility
during movement. Movement deducts from cached mobility and writes
the result back to the ship or land unit.
If something else charges it mobility while it's in this list, the
cache becomes stale. shp_nav() and lnd_nav() reload stale caches,
but don't run often enough. For instance, when a ship hits mines,
the mine damage makes the cache stale. If a direction or 'h'
follows directly, the stale mobility is written back, clobbering the
mine hit's mobility loss.
This mess dates back to Empire 2, where it replaced a different mess.
There may be more bugs.
unit_move()'s complex control flow makes reasoning about its loop
invariant too error-prone. Rewrite the mess instead, splitting off
sensible subroutines.
Also fixes a couple of minor annoyances:
* White-space can confuse the parser. For instance, "jg l" is
interpreted like "jgll". Fix to reject the space. Broken in commit
0c12d83, v4.3.7.
* The flagship uses radar automatically before any sub-command (since
Chainsaw), and all ships use it automatically after a move (since
4.2.2). Make them all use it before and after each sub-command,
whether it's a move or not.
* Land units don't use radar automatically. Make them use it just
like ships.
* Always report a flagship / leader change right when it happens, not
only before and after a prompt.
Left for another day, marked FIXME: BTU charging is unclean.
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>
When a player moves more than 1023 sectors in a single navigate
command, we overrun the buffer holding the path taken. Remote hole,
but it requires a ship that can go that far, and even a ship with
speed 1000 would need a tech level well in excess of 1000 for that.
Thus, the hole is purely theoretical for even remotely sane game
configurations.
First known version with the flaw is 4.0.0.
Fix by going back the older behavior: don't print the total path
taken, but do print what the path finder does. Context diff of an
example:
[0:634] Command : nav 3 6,0
Flagship is od oil derrick (#3)
+Using path 'n'
h =
k . .
j d
<67.2:67.2: 6,0> h
od oil derrick (#3) stopped at 6,0
-Path taken: n
This is how march works.
Removes the only use of shp_nav_one_sector()'s unusual return value 2.
Return 1 instead.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Its value has always been "", unless the deity recompiled with
RESOLVE_IPADDRESS defined, or imported another value with empdump.
I'm going to drop the RESOLVE_IPADDRESS code, including struct natstr
member nat_hostname. To prepare for that, fix the selector's value to
"", so it doesn't need nat_hostname, and deprecate it.
This changes its "len" in xdump meta nat from 512 to 0. Unlikely to
upset clients.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
scrap has always returned the scrapped planes' full crew, regardless
of efficiency. build, however, charged only 10%. If you built ten
planes with one crew each, you used up one military. Or none, if you
abused random rounding. If you scrapped them again, you got ten back.
Pretty pricey way to manufacture military, but wrong all the same.
4.2.3 plugged this hole by making build never round military to zero.
Ugly special case, and not documented. Also doesn't prevent abuse of
random rounding for planes requiring more than 10 crew, but such
planes don't exist in the stock game.
Redo this fix:
1. Make scrap return crew proportional to efficiency, randomly
rounded. Note that scrap returns only two thirds of the other
materials, rounded down. Recycling materials isn't perfect, but
recycling aircrew is.
2. Drop the special case from build: treat military just like other
materials.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Construction materials required for building a ship, plane or land
unit are rounded randomly. Crafty players exploit this to save
materials: they put just enough materials there so that build succeeds
when it rounds down. Then they simply keep trying until it succeeds.
Planes and land units are built at 10%, so rounding happens when
materials for 100% aren't multiples of ten. If they're below ten, you
can even build without materials. In the stock game, this is the case
for linf, and many plane types.
Ships are built at 20%, so multiples of five aren't rounded. Ship
building never rounds in the stock game.
Prevent the abuse of random rounding by requiring the required
fractional amount rounded up to be present. Don't change the actual
charging of materials; that's still randomly rounded.
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>
Adding or removing a command to/from a test has unfortunate effects:
* Before the previous commit: if the command consumes pseudorandom
numbers, all subsequent users of pseudorandom numbers get different
ones. This has always been a major headache.
* Since the previous commit: all subsequent users of pseudorandom
numbers get different ones whether the command consumes any or not.
That's even worse.
* If the command uses BTUs, subsequent prompts are changed. Not
nearly as bad as the above, but still annoying.
Create a new command __cmd to allow compensating for adding/removing
commands for tests. Throw in the ability to compensate treasury
changes for good measure. Three arguments: command count, BTU use,
money use.
Usage example: say you add a convert command to a test, and it uses 3
BTUs and $15. Then you compensate by adding "__cmd added 1 3 15"
right after it.
The command must not be available unless running_test_suite is on, of
course. Make it require the new player command capability TESTING,
and give that to all players when running_test_suite is on.
The command is intentionally not documented in info. Switch
running_test_suite off for info-test, to hide it (and any future
TESTING commands) from info-test.
Suppress the command counter increment for TESTING commands, so they
can be used without upsetting pseudorandom numbers
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Tests need repeatable pseudorandom numbers to yield repeatable
results. We seed the pseudorandom number generator with a fixed value
(emp_server -R) to make it produce the same sequence of numbers every
time. But whenever code exercised by a test is changed to consume
fewer or more of them, all subsequent users get different numbers
regardless. The ensuing test result changes are extremely tedious to
review.
To address this problem, reseed the PRNG with the count of commands
right before executing a command when running_test_suite is on. This
way, the effect of perturbing the PRN sequence lasts only until the
next command.
Note that the next command could be another player's. Doesn't matter.
Adding or removing commands now upsets the PRN sequence even for
commands that don't consume PRNs. The next commit will take care of
that.
Perturbs test results across the board. Hopefully, that'll happen
much less frequently now.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Command prompts show nat_timeused rounded down to minutes. They need
to be normalized, or else tests can fail when they take too long, or
cross midnight. Formatted prompts are normalized correctly (not
actually used since commit 9ca3fa9), but the journal contains raw
prompts. Normalize them, too.
Smoke test's journal.log is affected, because the server charges at
least 15s per login, which adds up into minutes in this test.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
