Planes building outside airfields and Land Units repairing..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I want to open a discussion on the repairing / improving of planes outside
airfields and repairing / improving of Land Units outside HQ and forts. The
following was extracted from the info files:

Ships can repair themselves in any sector, and can use work from their
crew,
or from a harbor they are in. Planes can only be repaired in airports,
and
only use work from the airport. Land units can be repaired in HQ's, "or"
in
fortresses, and use the work of the HQ or fort. This means that
front-line
units in forts will repair themselves each update, assuming that the
necessary
materials and work are available. They can also gain efficiency in other
sec-
tor types, but at a much reduced efficiency (1/3rd normal gain)"

The last sentence is not clear but it implies land units (and maybe planes)
will repair in any sector if materials and avail (work left from the
previous
update) are available. It further says that the items will improve at 1/3rd
the normal gain. A read through the code shows that this 1/3rd improvement
happens with consumption of 100% materials, cash and avail. The 1/3rd
improvement at 100% of cost is not my concern at this time - I just wish
the info page clearly stated this high cost.

The issue I want to bring before the Empire community is the interpretation
of what 1/3rd improvement means. My interpretation and that of the code
are very different. The way it is implemented makes this marginal feature
almost worthless. If you place a 10% land unit in a 100% highway sector
with sufficient avail, lcms, hcms and cash and the version report says
land units can improve 100% at the update, the unit will improve to 40%
(((100-10)/3)+10) rather than 43% ((100/3)+10). This difference here is not
significant but the chosen implementation becomes asymptotic. That
40% unit will improve to 60% (((100-40)/3)+40) at the next update rather
that 76% ((100/3)+43). Subsequent updates will provide the following
results: 73%, 82%, 88%, 92%, 95%, 96%, 97% and 98% where it
gets stuck because of the rounding involved. A random rounding
addition will allow it to eventually reach 100% but after a long time. In
my simple interpretation, the land unit would ahve made it to 100% at the
third update.

I would like to hear some other opinions. Is this working the way most
think it should or is the current implementation a hack like the last
sentence
in the info file? The answer to this question will let me know whether
my interpretation results in a bug report or a feature enhancement.

We can also start a separate thread on whether this should cost 100%
material AND cash with only 1/3rd improvement. I know that I do not
use this capability because the cost is prohibitive. Maybe we could make
it useable. 100% material and avail with 50%-66% cash might make
it useful in some situations.

Tom
(Ski)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Tom Johnson" <1234thjohnson1104REMOVE1234@verizon.net> writes:

> I want to open a discussion on the repairing / improving of planes
> outside airfields and repairing / improving of Land Units outside HQ
> and forts. The following was extracted from the info files:

From `info Land-units', to be precise.

> Ships can repair themselves in any sector, and can use work from their
> crew, or from a harbor they are in. Planes can only be repaired in
> airports, and only use work from the airport. Land units can be
> repaired in HQ's, "or" in fortresses, and use the work of the HQ or
> fort. This means that front-line units in forts will repair
> themselves each update, assuming that the necessary materials and work
> are available. They can also gain efficiency in other sec- tor types,
> but at a much reduced efficiency (1/3rd normal gain)"
>
> The last sentence is not clear but it implies land units (and maybe
> planes) will repair in any sector if materials and avail (work left
> from the previous update) are available. It further says that the
> items will improve at 1/3rd the normal gain. A read through the code
> shows that this 1/3rd improvement happens with consumption of 100%
> materials, cash and avail. The 1/3rd improvement at 100% of cost is
> not my concern at this time - I just wish the info page clearly stated
> this high cost.

Agreed on lack of clarity. As I'll show shortly, the rules are too
complicated to be written up clearly.

My reading of the code differs from yours. You are in a twisty maze
of rules, all alike (but not quite the same).

Ships, planes and and land units repair only if their sector is not
stopped. Repair is limited by maximum eff gain, work, materials
(sometimes), and money.

Ship repairs use work from ship's crew first, then sector work
(a.k.a. avail) if in harbor. Crew work is divided by three (rounded
down) outside harbors. Crew ship repair work is independent of other
work, including plane repair work (see below). Materials are required
only in harbors, but consumed when available, whether required or not.
Ships outside harbors cannot improve beyond 80%. Bug: they consume
materials (when available) and avail as if they did. Money is charged
only for the actual improvement.

Well-known abuse: you can repair ships without consuming materials. I
figure repairs at sea were deemed more important than plugging this
hole. Personally, I find the hole unacceptable. See below for ideas
on how to plug it.

Planes repair unless their sector is stopped. Repairs use sector work
(avail) first, then, if on a ship, ship crew work. Crew plane repair
work is independent of other work, even work on other planes on the
same ship. Materials are required unless plane is on a ship, but
consumed when available, whether required or not (abuse as for ships,
but less relevant). Actual improvement is divided by three (rounded
down) outside airfields. Yes, that means a ship in an airfield
repairs better than elsewhere, but it matters only when the airfield
ran out of avail already. Materials and avail are consumed as if no
division happened, i.e. roughly three times as much as for repairs in
airfields. The maximum you can get outside airfields is 1/3 of the
max eff gain shown by version. Planes on ships cannot improve beyond
80%. Bug: they consume materials and avail as if they did. Money is
charged only for the actual improvement.

Land units repair unless their sector is stopped. Repairs use sector
work (avail). Actual improvement is divided by three (rounded down)
outside headquarters/fortresses. Materials are consumed as if no
division happened, i.e. roughly three times as much as for repairs in
headquarters/fortresses. Misfeature: stupid rounding prevents land
units repair beyond 98%. The maximum you can get outside airfields is
1/3 of the max eff gain shown by version. Money and avail is charged
only for the actual improvement.

> The issue I want to bring before the Empire community is the
> interpretation of what 1/3rd improvement means. My interpretation and
> that of the code are very different. The way it is implemented makes

And my interpretation is still different

Regardless of who of us got it right, this is *strong* evidence that
the rules are too complicated by far!

> this marginal feature almost worthless. If you place a 10% land unit
> in a 100% highway sector with sufficient avail, lcms, hcms and cash
> and the version report says land units can improve 100% at the update,
> the unit will improve to 40% (((100-10)/3)+10) rather than 43%
> ((100/3)+10). This difference here is not significant but the chosen
> implementation becomes asymptotic. That 40% unit will improve to 60%
> (((100-40)/3)+40) at the next update rather that 76% ((100/3)+43).
> Subsequent updates will provide the following results: 73%, 82%, 88%,
> 92%, 95%, 96%, 97% and 98% where it gets stuck because of the rounding
> involved. A random rounding addition will allow it to eventually
> reach 100% but after a long time. In my simple interpretation, the
> land unit would ahve made it to 100% at the third update.
>
> I would like to hear some other opinions. Is this working the way
> most think it should or is the current implementation a hack like the
> last sentence in the info file? The answer to this question will let
> me know whether my interpretation results in a bug report or a feature
> enhancement.

In my not particularly humble opinion, the current implementation is
an incomprehensible mess.

> We can also start a separate thread on whether this should cost 100%
> material AND cash with only 1/3rd improvement. I know that I do not

Material, but NOT cash.

> use this capability because the cost is prohibitive. Maybe we could
> make it useable. 100% material and avail with 50%-66% cash might make
> it useful in some situations.

I've used it in some situations.


I'd like to see a set of simple repair rules, identical for ships,
planes and land units, except for use of separate configuration
parameters and sector types. There should be no loopholes to save
materials.

Here's a conservative attempt. I'm toying with more radical ideas,
but let's consider this one first. The build command consumes avail
and money only for the efficiency it actually builds, as it does now,
but materials for 100%. Repairs then cost avail and money, but no
materials. Repairs `in the field', i.e. not in a suitable sector, are
slower (max gain 1/3 of normal) and can't go beyond 80%.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Here is start of a proposal

Unit Repair Max Eff. Cost Avail Mat. Max
Eff
gain * * *
unit in build sector max_gain 1 1 1 100
unit in non-build land sector max_gain / 2 2 2 2 100
unit at sea max_gain / 3 3 0 0 80

max_gain is configured in the econfig parameters.
wf on the unit and unit's carrier is used first then avail from the
sector.
If the unit is military then the wf comes from military on the unit and
unit's carrier
On a plane, the crew is used as the unit's wf.
A unit with engineering capability repairs at regular rate.
Avail is only used from the sector if it is not stopped.

Note: it is possible to configure max_gain (max eff gain per update)
to exceed 100% so if it is configured to 120%, then non-build land
sector's
max gain would be 60% and max gain if the unit is at the sea is 40%.

Comments, questions or suggestions are welcome.

Ron K.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"rkoenderink@yahoo.ca" <rkoenderink@yahoo.ca> writes:

> Here is start of a proposal
>
> Unit Repair Max Eff. Cost Avail Mat. Max
> Eff
> gain * * *
> unit in build sector max_gain 1 1 1 100
> unit in non-build land sector max_gain / 2 2 2 2 100
> unit at sea max_gain / 3 3 0 0 80

Are you sure about the zero multiplier for avail at sea?

> max_gain is configured in the econfig parameters.
> wf on the unit and unit's carrier is used first then avail from the
> sector.
> If the unit is military then the wf comes from military on the unit and
> unit's carrier
> On a plane, the crew is used as the unit's wf.
> A unit with engineering capability repairs at regular rate.
> Avail is only used from the sector if it is not stopped.
>
> Note: it is possible to configure max_gain (max eff gain per update)
> to exceed 100% so if it is configured to 120%, then non-build land
> sector's
> max gain would be 60% and max gain if the unit is at the sea is 40%.
>
> Comments, questions or suggestions are welcome.

Is it a good idea to have different rules for `in the field' (second
row in your table) and `at sea' (last row)? Yet another rule to
remember...

There's a reason for the difference, of course. `At sea' can't use
materials, so you substitute money. In other words, you give players
an option to `buy' materials from the game. That's new. More
complexity. Probably not relevant in practice, as the price seems
very high.

I dislike the different costs (money, and to a lesser degree work &
material) per point of efficiency. Why? Complexity. Under the
current rules, I have a fairly simple tradeoff to consider: whether
the spatial shift of work and material use is worth its price and the
repair limits. The price is negligible most of the time: I can save
materials (misfeature), which are normally plentiful, but have to pay
more work, which is normally plentiful. Your proposal makes the
tradeoff more complex, because the repair limit rules become more
complex, and the price becomes non-trivial. I doubt that contributes
to the game. I'd rather simplify the repair limit rules and eliminate
the price difference (money and materials).

When repairs in the field and at sea are so much more expensive, then
I'll often want to switch them off so I can limp home for a more
economic repair. No fun. Besides, I can't. On land, I can stop the
sector (or beg my ally to stop it for me), but that only stops the
sector's contribution, not the unit's and its carrier's. That only
leaves scuttle.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Another problem. you can get more work done by loading military on a
ship. Avail made by mil in sector is used up, while work from mil in
ships isn't.

Example (60 etu per update). Say you have 20 10% jf1. 120m in an
airfield make 28 avail. Good for 70% jf1, i.e. one jf1 will go 10% ->
80%. No load the mil and the jf1 on a cal, and all 20 jf1 will go
from 10% -> 40%. You got 8.5 times more work from your mil than in
the airfield.

Minor point: sector work is (normally) delayed by one update. By
loading workers onto a ship, you can use their work right away instead
of next turn. Of course, you can also remove the delay by fooling
around with the budget priority misfeature.

Different rules for work in different places just complicate the game
without contributing anything to it. Such complex rule sets tend to
have abusable holes. I'd prefer to have the same rules for work
everywhere. Either make sectors more like ships (get rid of the avail
delay), or units (ships, planes, land units) more like sectors (let
them make avail, and while we're at it keep track of civilian work,
fixing #752775). Or simply scrap the idea of letting units repair
themselves and their load. Opinions?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Hi
This is how i'd like to see it: strict and obvoius rules, without
exceptions, which - when connected together - creates complex but
prdictible result.
This is just idea of basic rules, so i'm avoiding any math formulas:


1. Surrounding: source for resources to repair

All units needs resources for repair: personel, materials and cash. Cash
is a global resource and is always taken from nation-wide treasury,
Other resources - like workforce and materials should be taken from
unit's surrounding.
At this point some abstraction of 'surrounding' could be useful. I
imagine 'surrounding' as sector for units ay land, and carrier for units
on carrier.

So there should be some common part in sectors and all units able to
carrying another, reflecting their capabilities in repairing units.


2. Personnel

Units needs personell to repair. Personell is taken from the units
surrounding, and from its crew:
- planes on airfield uses sector personell + planes crew
- planes on carrier uses carrier crew + planes crew
- tank on train uses train crew + tankcrew
etc

All 'surroundings' should have modifiers reflecting their personell
qualifications:
- airfields personell is better in repairing planes
- headquaters is better in repairing land units
- carrier crew is better in repairing planes (but not as good as
airfield guys)
- headquaters is slightly better in repairing planes that park (or other
non-engineering sector)

There should be possibility to increase overall qulifications of
personnel in surrounding, by using units with some 'engineering'
capabilities. It could be nice extension for current 'engineer' unit.
So: presence of some engineering ship in a sector could speed-up repairs
of other ships in the sector, but would not affect repairs of planes on
carrier in this sector.

profits: units may be repaired anywhere, as long as there is avilable
manpower to do it, but it is (much) more economic to do it in proper
place (ships in h, lands in !, plane in *)

issues: there is an issue with carriers: what its crew should do first:
repair itself or repair carried unit. I think that this could be
resolved somehow, or even controlled by player, as some per-unit factor:
one could decide if he wants working carrier with broken planes, or
sunking carrier with squadron of prepared flying aces)


3. Materials

Units needs materials to repair (currently lcms and hcms). There should
be no exceptionb from this rule.

Units are taking these materials from their surrounding, and from
themselves (from its cargo).
To allow repairs 'in the field', and - esspecialy - at sea, there should
be few modifications:

- All ships and hland units should have some small cargo capacity for
repair materials (lcm, hcm). Even planes could have space for few lcms.

- There should be possibility to scrap units on carriers (hey, Billy,
let's take the engine from this junk to repair the plane!)
Efficiency of scrapping should be the same as efficiency of rerpairing,
and should depend on surrounding's personell qualificasions. So
scrapping plane on carrier should give much more materials than
scrapping some big land unit on troop transporter. Mods from engineering
units in surrounding should apply.

- This is the good one: damaging units should produce some materials
(debris). Just try to take a walk with metal detector somwhere around
Kursk, Kiev or Arnheim.
Debris produced from damaged unit should be in some non-linear
relationship to taken damage, like:
* taking 1 efficiency point should produce N materials in debris
* taking 10 epts should produce N*3 materials
* taking 100 epts should produce N*10 materials
So slowly shelled panzer squadron should left lot of materias (as there
is more time and better conditions to collect them and to disassemble
junk), and heavy nuclear blast should left only some.

Total number of materials produced by most effective 'forceed
disassembly' of unit (100*N in above example) shouldn be higner than,
say, 50-25% of all materials. This shouldn't be too small, since it will
disappear when shelled next time.

Materials produced by damaging units should be distributed in such
order: first they go to the units cargo space, and when there is no more
space in there, they are going to its surrounding, and if there is no
more space, they just dissapear.
So: damaged land unit will take his stuff back to his cargo, and when
its full, the materials are dropped into sector. If ship is damaged on
the sea, all materials above his cargo space are dropped into
surrounding, which is sea sector, which has 0 capacity fo lcm/hcm, so
they sunk.
Damaged plane takes his, say, 1 lcm back on board, and all above this is
droppoed into sector where air battle occurs, leaving picturesque
monument of killed aces of skies in form of few lcms.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
>
> fixing #752775). Or simply scrap the idea of letting units repair
> themselves and their load. Opinions?

I personally think that all three unit types (land, ship, plane) should
only be allowed to repair in their appropriate sector (!, h, *). This
will keep it VERY simple and people will know exactly what to expect (i.e.
same level of resources required to repair in these sectors as when
they were originally built). Trying to compute a myriad of costs, avail,
work, commodities, etc., quickly falls into the "too hard / too tedious"
bucket, particularly for new players.

I've always found partially repaired units to be a waste (and have been
unpleasantly surprised sometimes that resources were used for unexpected
repairs) and do my utmost, when waging war, to have such sectors near
the front specifically for repair services.

To me, this seems like a perfect example of something we can keep simple
(or rather simplify as it's a mess right now).

Mr. Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I agree with Mr Ed

Keep it simple.

Repair only in the appropriate sectors.

And to be honest, has repair in other sectors ever made the difference
between winning and losing? If we have to calculate this sort of
minutiae to get an edge, it will make the game even more time consuming.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Idea1: remove field repair like Markus said. Nice and easy.
Idea2: repair is always free and bring back units at 100 eff. Empire is a
strategic game and you're already paying full maintenance no matter the eff.
This should include full repair at update no matter where the unit is
located.

Idea3: make a difference between construction (shipyard for example) and
base of operation (harbour) sector (but that's not a solution to our
problem, just another idea).

Chtom.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

I agree with keeping it simple, however, it is nice to have things repair.

consider the following example:

you have a mountain outpost. You park some HATs in it. Someone shells or bombs
your mountain, damaging the HATs. Now do you really want to have to drive those
guys all the way back home to repair? One thing that we need to address with
repairing of units/planes in non !/* sectors, is that once the sector that it is
in goes over 60%, all work then goes to production first, ie: mountains only
mine gold and don't have any avail for repairs.


now a note for why I think things should repair in non !/*:

I first found the repair thing to be a hassle in setting up Terminator stuff. I
would make a airfield, build planes. Make the sector a headquarter, build
units. Then des it as a mountain. Then the things would not repair fast enough
to be worthwhile as Terminator defenses. It made me have to make a script to
manually edit the eff of all the 100's of planes and units, note this cannot be
done with a wildcard, the script requires each unit/plane to be individually
edited, a real hassle I might add, so I have no mercy for all the damage players
will incur in PZ4, btw. So then if players draw out units, I'd like those units
to return to their mountain (or whatever) and repair.


A comment on the idea for building 10% units uses all 100% of the commods: what
happens when you scrap stuff? do you get all 100% back, or only a partial?


-Bungy





"wahbit" <wahbit2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112705407.761208.158440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I agree with Mr Ed
>
> Keep it simple.
>
> Repair only in the appropriate sectors.
>
> And to be honest, has repair in other sectors ever made the difference
> between winning and losing? If we have to calculate this sort of
> minutiae to get an edge, it will make the game even more time consuming.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Instead of doing damage, have a probability of the unit vaporizing.
That does away with all the complexity at one stroke, without taking
away anything of strategic interest. Actually I think it will be more
interesting strategically.

So for example, if a unit takes 10% damage under the current scheme,
convert that into a 10% chance that the unit vaporizes. If it vaporizes
it is gone, if not it stays at 100%

Build all units at 100%, but set mobility negative so it takes the time
you want it to take to become operational.