Yitzi's unofficial SMAX patch 3.1d

[Yitzi]

Yitzi's unofficial SMAX patch 3.1d

http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=270

Fixed some more bugs, sorry about those.

As always, this requires all the other files from 3.1.

[TarMinyatur]

Minor issue with "enhanced information":

When you cycle through your bases, using left or right arrow keys, the support and psych tabs' enhanced info doesn't get updated. If you, however, hover your cursor over the tabs, they do indeed get updated.

[Yitzi]

Minor issue with "enhanced information":

When you cycle through your bases, using left or right arrow keys, the support and psych tabs' enhanced info doesn't get updated. If you, however, hover your cursor over the tabs, they do indeed get updated.

Thank you; what's happening is that I didn't realize that it doesn't redraw that part of the screen when cycling (since unmodded there is no change), so it just leaves it how it is.

I suspect I will be able to find how to fix this, but I am not certain (as stuff involving i/o procedures is generally difficult).  In any case, as you said it's a fairly minor issue.

[TarMinyatur]

I noticed that an Upgrade Discount is surprisingly increasing the cost. I have Unit Construction Cost set to 4, i.e. take the higher of weapon and armor, multiply that by chassis cost/4. My chassis for Infantry = 4, Speeder = 6, etc.

If you set your discount for "1/16th the squared value of old rows" to 10, your upgrade costs increase by a mysterious amount! I tried setting it to -10, but that didn't produce the expected amount either.

Perhaps the problem is that discounts aren't expected to exceed costs for each pair of options?

I have the four Upgrade options as:

10,  ; Cost for each row of new unit
0,  ; Discount for each row of old unit
0,    ; Cost for 1/16 * new rows squared
10,  ; Discount for 1/16 * old rows squared

You may see strange results for upgrading a 1-1-1 to a 6-1-1. It should cost 60. But it costs 82.

Ideally I want to do this:

25, ; x New Rows
20, ; x Old Rows
0,   ; x (New Rows^2)/16
10, ; x (Old Rows^2)/16

Such that upgrading veteran mid-technology units will be preferable to building a scout and upgrading it your best weapon or armor on the next turn. Upgrades will still be moderately costly for the early game though.

[Yitzi]

I noticed that an Upgrade Discount is surprisingly increasing the cost. I have Unit Construction Cost set to 4, i.e. take the higher of weapon and armor, multiply that by chassis cost/4. My chassis for Infantry = 4, Speeder = 6, etc.

If you set your discount for "1/16th the squared value of old rows" to 10, your upgrade costs increase by a mysterious amount! I tried setting it to -10, but that didn't produce the expected amount either.

Perhaps the problem is that discounts aren't expected to exceed costs for each pair of options?

I have the four Upgrade options as:

10,  ; Cost for each row of new unit
0,  ; Discount for each row of old unit
0,    ; Cost for 1/16 * new rows squared
10,  ; Discount for 1/16 * old rows squared

I would advice against using those values anyway, as then when both the new and old units are expensive the total would be negative.

However, you have found a bug, thank you.  (I accidentally used the quadratic discount-for-old in place of the quadratic cost-for-new in addition to its proper role.)  I will be putting up 3.1e shortly to fix this.

Ideally I want to do this:

25, ; x New Rows
20, ; x Old Rows
0,   ; x (New Rows^2)/16
10, ; x (Old Rows^2)/16

Such that upgrading veteran mid-technology units will be preferable to building a scout and upgrading it your best weapon or armor on the next turn. Upgrades will still be moderately costly for the early game though.

Do you want building a high-tech unit to still be preferable to building a mid-tech unit and upgrading it the next turn?

[TarMinyatur]

I'll have to try out the 25,20,0,10 scheme in a game to get a better feel for the non-linear portion.

I like the idea of, for example, a 36-row Needlejet being a huge investment, but it comes with low upgrade costs...eventually free upgrades.

If a faction builds a mid-tech unit (e.g. 8 rows) then upgrades it, that's fine. The main thing I'm trying to address is a commando scout being built for 10 minerals then quickly given the best weapon/armor/special ability combo. I want to respect the embodied energy in older units. As component technology increases, recycling can return 100% of the invested energy. The tricky part is to determine when that should occur.

[Yitzi]

I'll have to try out the 25,20,0,10 scheme in a game to get a better feel for the non-linear portion.

I like the idea of, for example, a 36-row Needlejet being a huge investment, but it comes with low upgrade costs...eventually free upgrades.

If a faction builds a mid-tech unit (e.g. 8 rows) then upgrades it, that's fine. The main thing I'm trying to address is a commando scout being built for 10 minerals then quickly given the best weapon/armor/special ability combo. I want to respect the embodied energy in older units. As component technology increases, recycling can return 100% of the invested energy. The tricky part is to determine when that should occur.

Do you want upgrading an 8-row unit to a 12-row unit to be free?  (In which case, why would anyone build a 12-row unit?)  Or just have a cost comparable to the extra mineral cost of building the more expensive unit?

[TarMinyatur]

Yes, a faction could build a mid-tech unit, say a Fusion Jet, and then upgrade it for free (or very low cost) when Shard weaponry is discovered and then prototyped. They'd surely never thereafter directly build a Shard Penetrator. A possible problem is that prototypes apply across all chassis types. A Shard gun prototyped on a low-cost infantry, allows that weapon to get mounted on a Speeder, Jet, Foil, etc.

If Prototypes had to be done for each chassis...that might balance the scheme I have in mind. On the other hand, a Fusion Jet is still 200+ minerals using Construction Code "4" and chassis cost of "8".

The idea is that a small, high-tech force can be a viable alternative to swarms of Missile Rovers. Maybe that is why Firaxis gave Choppers all those attacks per turn...but I disable choppers.

[Nexii]

I find flat upgrade costs work quite well (10E per mineral row).  That's half or sometimes a bit less than it would cost to rush a new unit.  Although, this is with flat unit costs.

[Yitzi]

Yes, a faction could build a mid-tech unit, say a Fusion Jet, and then upgrade it for free (or very low cost) when Shard weaponry is discovered and then prototyped. They'd surely never thereafter directly build a Shard Penetrator.

In that case, something like you described makes a lot of sense.

If Prototypes had to be done for each chassis...that might balance the scheme I have in mind.

It's a possibility for a future project.

[TarMinyatur]

I find flat upgrade costs work quite well (10E per mineral row).  That's half or sometimes a bit less than it would cost to rush a new unit.  Although, this is with flat unit costs.

Interesting. All your chassis types have a value of 4? Such that chassis/4 = 1?

In my current game, I've gotten to the point that upgrades are preferable to new units. I like it so far, but I might push it back a little, make the exponential discount 6/16 instead of 8/16.

[Nexii]

No the chassis types differ.  See attached.  This is using cost mode #2.

Upgrade costs as follows:
10,      ; Upgrade cost per row of new unit (plus per square of rows if not prototyped) {-32768 to 32767}
0,       ; Upgrade discount per row of old unit {-32768 to 32767}
0,       ; Upgrade cost per 1/16 square of new unit rows {-32768 to 32767}
0,       ; Upgrade discount per 1/16 square of old unit rows {-32768 to 32767}
0,       ; Upgrade cost per weapon difference {-32768 to 32767}
0,       ; Upgrade cost per armor difference {-32768 to 32767}

Edit: Hovertank should be 3.  4 on rover and hovertank I find also work okay if you put in a strong mobile vs open bonus.