Update of bug #19253 (project freeciv):
Summary: Bug in unit_bribe_cost => unit_bribe_cost veteran
contribution looks wrong
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #3:
> Without investigating version history more, I'm not sure if
> this has been written with multiple veteran levels in mind at
> all.
Using the power of "git log -S" I find this code apparently came in in r12297
<http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv?revision=12297&view=revision>, RT #20368,
in Sep 2006 (possibly as an afterthought). I dunno when multiple veteran
levels came in. With RT still down I can't easily check the history further.
Some examples. ("tenlevels" is a hypothetical ruleset with ten veteran levels
with nonlinear power_fact=100,120,...,250.)
Old behaviour:
classic: 1.0x, 1.33x, 1.66x, 2.0x
civ1/civ2: 1.0x, 1.33x
tenlevels: 1.0x, 1.33x, ..., 4.0x
akfaew behaviour:
classic: 1.0x, 1.25x, 1.5x, 1.75x
civ1/civ2: 1.0x, 1.5x
tenlevels: 1.0x, 1.1x, ..., 1.9x
simple power_fact based:
classic: 1.0x, 1.5x, 1.75x, 2.0x
civ1/civ2: 1.0x, 1.5x
tenlevels: 1.0x, 1.2x, ..., 2.5x
For the last, we could arbitrarily scale power_fact to give the same cost for
veterans, but the costs for hardened/elite in classic/default ruleset would
end up wrong.
I don't think there's a simple answer that gives exactly the same results as
before on existing rulesets. So, I'm leaning toward fixing this on S2_4 and
living with the current S2_3 behaviour, so as not to disrupt running games by
changing bribe costs.
I'm leaning toward a formula involving semi-arbitrary valuations of power_fact
and move_bonus. Any opinion on the values of the factors, or shall I just make
them up?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?19253>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
