URL:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?23143>
Summary: Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared
to 2.4
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 04 Jan 2015 11:25:17 UTC
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
Status: Need Info
Assigned to: None
Originator Email:
Open/Closed: Open
Release:
Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0, 3.0.0
_______________________________________________________
Details:
On S2_4, the ruleset-defined defense bonus of a base was multiplied by the
hardcoded 1.5x bonus from a river on the same tile.
On S2_5 and later, all extra bonuses are added together, so the net effect of
having both a base (e.g. fortress) and a river is reduced. (Details and
example on the wiki ruleset update page
<http://www.freeciv.org/wiki/How_to_update_a_ruleset_from_2.4_to_2.5?diff=22599&oldid=22539>.)
This raises a couple of problems/questions:
* Exactly preserving ruleset behaviour is tricky-to-impossible because the
only available effect to add the correction factor (Defend_Bonus) has
side-effects:
** IgWall units (Howitzers) would ignore the correction.
*** Unhardcoding IgWall (patch #4799, already on S2_6) would deal with this,
but it's too late to do that for S2_5.
*** However, we could remove use of IgWall from supplied rulesets, and
backport just the AI logic from that patch to spot IgWall-like constructs
using negated=true requirements?
** The BadWallAttacker behaviour would be triggered in base+river cases.
However, none of the supplied rulesets have units with this flag.
* Do we want to attempt to correct this in any or all of the supplied
rulesets, or just accept (and advertise) the reduced bonus?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?23143>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
