Page 3 of 4

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:12 pm
by cazfi
Does Feature #804292 sound like a viable solution to the veterancy gaining concerns?

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:56 pm
by Ignatus
Yes, as a first step it will allow to make sensible rulesets. Other options might be thought about later.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:22 pm
by 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%.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:37 pm
by cazfi
Corbeau wrote: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).

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:50 pm
by Corbeau
cazfi wrote:
Corbeau wrote: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.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:59 pm
by 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.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:07 pm
by cazfi
Corbeau wrote: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.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:10 pm
by Corbeau
cazfi wrote:
Corbeau wrote: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.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:01 pm
by 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.

Re: Combat_Rounds effect: to kill or to survive?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:00 pm
by 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.