Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

[Corbeau]

Would it be possible to implement one more setting, where a unit that doesn't kill can also gain experience? For example, a unit that survives against overwhelming odds should be awarded somehow (because they definitely gained experience). The criteria may be that the probability of gaining experience depends on the strength of the opponent. Obviously, an Armour unit treading over some workers shouldn't gain ANY experience. But Marines surviving an attack from Armour definitely should, even if the Armour is still alive.

A possible equation would be: the multiplication of attack strength and firepower of the attacker against defence strength and firepower of the defender should give the base chance of gaining veteran level; in case of equal numbers it should be 50%.

[cazfi]

Would it be possible to implement one more setting, where a unit that doesn't kill can also gain experience?

As of freeciv-3.0 that should have minimum changes to existing system, wouldn't it suffice to leave the only_killing_makes_veteran FALSE and to reduce veteran chance to offset the fact that average unit lives over more battles than before (that's what I'm trying with sandbox ruleset - not using new only_killing_makes_veteran setting there).

[Corbeau]

Would it be possible to implement one more setting, where a unit that doesn't kill can also gain experience?

As of freeciv-3.0 that should have minimum changes to existing system, wouldn't it suffice to leave the only_killing_makes_veteran FALSE and to reduce veteran chance to offset the fact that average unit lives over more battles than before (that's what I'm trying with sandbox ruleset - not using new only_killing_makes_veteran setting there).

Well, it would move toward my request, but it would be a step back regarding Ignatus' fear of abuse (if I understood it right) and toward the present situation where you can build a large amount of cheap and weak units to train your (unofficial) ally's attack unit without him being in danger of losing that unit.

[Corbeau]

Let's get serious.

So, I propose that the chance for veterancy gain is calculated as follows:

A(ttacker) = Att_strength * HP * FP
D(efender) = Def_strength * HP * FP

Defender_vet_gain_chance = A / (A + D)

Attacker_vet_gain_chance = D / (A + D)

This would only be the BASE gain chance. It would be adjusted by what vet level the unit already has, as it is defined in the present ruleset.

There is also a simpler alternative: make the base chance equal to the percentage of HP the unit lost in that particular attack. If it lost 18 out of 20 HP, its BASE promotion chance is 90%. This is completely independant on whether the unit is attacking or defending and would basically have a very similar effect compared to the method above, give or take a coin toss or two.

[cazfi]

Well, it would move toward my request, but it would be a step back regarding Ignatus' fear of abuse (if I understood it right) and toward the present situation where you can build a large amount of cheap and weak units to train your (unofficial) ally's attack unit without him being in danger of losing that unit.

Well, if they are weak, they would lose most of the rounds, and die. The case where neither side dies is when both sides win about 50% of rounds -> neither side wins enough rounds to kill the opponent.

[Corbeau]

Well, it would move toward my request, but it would be a step back regarding Ignatus' fear of abuse (if I understood it right) and toward the present situation where you can build a large amount of cheap and weak units to train your (unofficial) ally's attack unit without him being in danger of losing that unit.

Well, if they are weak, they would lose most of the rounds, and die. The case where neither side dies is when both sides win about 50% of rounds -> neither side wins enough rounds to kill the opponent.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

[cazfi]

Take current sandbox ruleset for example. It has Combat_Rounds always at 15. If we consider early units which have 10 hitpoints and firepower 1, one dies from full strength if opponent wins 10 rounds. That happens unless one wins at least 6 rounds himself. Both sides need to win 6-9 rounds for neither side to die. One side cannot be much weaker than the other.

[Corbeau]

I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing. I'm saying that a Dragoon going around killing Workers shouldn't advance many - if any - veteran levels, while a Phalanx unit barely surviving the Dragoon attack should have a fair chance to get a veteran level, even if it didn't kill the Dragoon.

[bard]

I think this only_killing_makes_veteran is good enough for gameplay purposes, and to avoid possible exploits.
One disadvantage, as pointed by Corbeau, is that veteran ranks would stop being "realistic", because units that survived many fights, damaging enemy units and losing hit points, would have no chance to get veterancy in the case that none of the enemies died.

Corbeau suggests to link the chances of veterancy to the hit points lost in battle. But I think the key factor to avoid exploits is to give chances of gaining veterancy only to units that had some chance to die in battle. I'd suggest linking the chances of getting a veteran rank to the chances of being killed in that battle, but I think cazfi patch is a simpler solution, and good enought for me.

[cazfi]

I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing. I'm saying that a Dragoon going around killing Workers shouldn't advance many - if any - veteran levels, while a Phalanx unit barely surviving the Dragoon attack should have a fair chance to get a veteran level, even if it didn't kill the Dragoon.

Yeah, but that's not a new issue with Combat_Rounds effect of S3_0, which we are trying to get working here. I'd say that overall overhaul of veteran level gaining system need to wait for freeciv-3.1 at this point.