[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of bug #23143 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Fixed  
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of bug #23143 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 

___

Follow-up Comment #11:

I've got some positive feedback about this rule change (accompanied by a
general note about how multiplicative bonuses can get out of hand) so I think
we keep the new rule in default (meaning classic in S2_6) ruleset and restore
compliant behavior in civ/2 rulesets only (I'm evaluating effects on alien
ruleset - might change that in later ticket)

Attached patch should be good enough implementation for 2.6 to stop the
regression. It adds "NaturalDefense" flag for extras, that can be used to
select if the extra's defense bonus is calculated in "Natural" defense layer
(when the flag is set) or "Fortification" defense layer (when the flag is not
set). Inside the defense layers bonuses are additive, between these two layers
multiplicative. There's nothing more to defense layers in 2.6. I have some
vague ideas to implement such a concept later (maybe 3.0, maybe not)
Rivers in civ/2 rulesets get the new flag, no other extra in supplied rulesets
do.

(file #25004, file #25005)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: NaturalDefense.patch   Size:13 KB
File name: NaturalDefense-S2_6.patch  Size:13 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of bug #23143 (project freeciv):

  Status: In Progress => None   
 Assigned to:   cazfi => None   


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of bug #23143 (project freeciv):

Category:None => general
  Status:   Need Info => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #23143 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0, 3.0.0 => 2.6.0, 3.0.0   
 Summary: Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared
to 2.4 => Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5+ compared to 2.4

___

Follow-up Comment #10:

We'll live with this in S2_5. I'll declare it as a rule change in release
notes.

Keeping ticket open for possibility of restoring old behaviour for civ1/2 in
2.6+. (But they will remain wrong throughout 2.5.x.)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

> the behavior probably isn't what the intention was in civ2civ3
> either.

Checked some old email's from bardo, and this behavior (selecting which units
defend *against*) was the exact reason he wanted to make it via an effect.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

> Can we use civ2civ3 method for civ/2 rulesets to avoid
> regression in their compliance?

No, it can not, and the behavior probably isn't what the intention was in
civ2civ3 either. Problem is in targeting which units the bonus applies to. In
case of base defense_bonus, it's the units native to base gaining the bonus.
In case of the Defend_Bonus effect, requirements define the unit *against*
which the bonus applies.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

Can we use civ2civ3 method for civ/2 rulesets to avoid regression in their
compliance? As I said, otherwise I consider this a rule change.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

In general, I would just accept this as an rules change in 2.5. It's an
another story if we adjust things in S2_6 (civ1 and civ2 rulesets should be
fixed, but I'm not sure the old behavior was correct for both of them either)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Jacob Nevins]

Additional Item Attachment, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

File name: 24_river_fortress.sav.bz2  Size:13 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #23143 (project freeciv):

> backport just the AI logic from that patch to spot IgWall-like
> constructs using negated=true requirements?

That would require backport of patch #4797

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #23143] Fortress+River defense bonus reduced in 2.5 compared to 2.4

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 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
.)

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:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev