Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: Weapon reuse?

GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3324
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 00:22

Well, we have tabards and golden tabards, so there are 2 levels of them, aren't there?

The work would be adding the programs and then rebalancing everything. And of course we would need new graphics for the new wares.

I just had a look at the code, trainingsites are a special form of productionsites, so adding an extra output to the training programs should be possible by changing the conf only, just add something like produce=scrap_metal to the training programs and you're done.


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
wl-zocker

Joined: 2011-12-30, 17:37
Posts: 495
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 00:37

Well, we have tabards and golden tabards, so there are 2 levels of them, aren't there?

You err face-smile.png See https://wl.widelands.org/wiki/SoldierLevels/ : The first tabard is for the creation of the soldiers, only the golden one is for training.


"Only few people know how much one has to know in order to know how little one knows." - Werner Heisenberg

Top Quote
DragonAtma
Avatar
Topic Opener
Joined: 2014-09-14, 01:54
Posts: 351
Ranking
Tribe Member
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 01:15

That's not an error, seeing as they (presumably) take off the old tabard when they put on the golden tabard.

That brings up a question, though. Imperials use a helmet to create a basic soldier, and then... ummm... replace that helmet with a completely identical helmet to raise their HP from 130 to 151. Now, I doubt that one helmet is worn over another, so does this mean it's time for atlanteans to instead use a second, simpler helmet as basic equipment?


Top Quote
einstein13
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1118
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Poland
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 01:46

I don't think that the idea of reusing weapons is a good. I think that It should be single- use only, as before.

But If you are thinking about adding "reusing" with new resources type, consider that we can reuse less resources, like with dismantling buildings. That would be acceptable for me. (But still we need coal to melt things!)


einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top Quote
SirVer

Joined: 2009-02-19, 15:18
Posts: 1445
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany - Munich
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 07:42

They go through a lot of training with the helmet - they get hit and fall and so on. Probably the helmet/the armor/the tabard will be broken/messed up. That is why they need a new one and it cannot be reused.


Top Quote
tuggyne

Joined: 2011-07-22, 00:27
Posts: 42
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Location: TN
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 16:23

wl-zocker wrote:

I think programming-wise, it would be no problem to change the behavior (I do not know if trainingsites can produce wares, but if they can, this change can be done by only changing the conf files).

But much times has been spent into balancing the tribes as well as possible (they all have advantages and disadvantages, but none is always superior). Such a change would require much effort without much benefit. The main problem is the following: If the last level of a soldier is very very very expensive, why shouldn't I just leave it at the second-highest level? He is fairly well, he will win many fights, and he barely consumed any wares.

That sounds awfully fallacious, since precisely the same argument can be applied to the current status quo: the last level is the most expensive (undeniably), the second-highest is almost as good, and so on.

I guess the key is the last point, though, which at first didn't sound right at all, given that the proposal is (as I understand it) to make every level require increasing investment in gear just the same. Elaborating on that rather more, what you mean is that the (amortized) fixed cost of making the mid-level gear once or twice and reusing it between cycles can be a lot cheaper to train large quantities of soldiers than the current variable cost of making new mid-level gear every time.

And yeah, given that, the balance shift is likely too high to be practical.

SirVer wrote:

They go through a lot of training with the helmet - they get hit and fall and so on. Probably the helmet/the armor/the tabard will be broken/messed up. That is why they need a new one and it cannot be reused.

I guess you mean that they wear out their older one while training for the new equipment. The current descriptions make it sound a little peculiar that way, though. "These advanced shields are used by the best soldiers of the Atlanteans. They are produced in the armor smithy and used in the labyrinth – together with food – to train soldiers from Defense level 1 to level 2." (emphasis added) And so on with the others.


Top Quote
wl-zocker

Joined: 2011-12-30, 17:37
Posts: 495
Ranking
Tribe Member
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2014-12-04, 17:40

That's not an error, seeing as they (presumably) take off the old tabard when they put on the golden tabard.

Of course, I erred. It was too late in the night. I am still unsure whether it is worth recycling clothes.

But If you are thinking about adding "reusing" with new resources type, consider that we can reuse less resources, like with dismantling buildings. That would be acceptable for me. (But still we need coal to melt things!)

My idea was something like:

  • 2 cheap weapons/helmets etc. + 1 coal -> 1 iron
  • 2 expensive weapons/helmets etc. + 1 coal -> 1 iron + 1 gold
  • The used weapons can be of different types (e.g. 1 lance + 1 helmet also works).
  • Cheap weapons: They cost iron, but no gold.
  • Expensive weapons: They cost at least one iron and at least one gold.

This would still mean a significant loss of materials.

That sounds awfully fallacious, since precisely the same argument can be applied to the current status quo: the last level is the most expensive (undeniably), the second-highest is almost as good, and so on.

I guess the key is the last point, though, which at first didn't sound right at all, given that the proposal is (as I understand it) to make every level require increasing investment in gear just the same. Elaborating on that rather more, what you mean is that the (amortized) fixed cost of making the mid-level gear once or twice and reusing it between cycles can be a lot cheaper to train large quantities of soldiers than the current variable cost of making new mid-level gear every time.

Yes, to make strong soldiers a bit stronger, you have to invest a lot of resources. But imagine that a fully-trained soldier fights against a soldier who still needs one or two levels. The stronger one will most likely win and then return to his building, where he will rest. For this player, there are no lost resources, but for the other player, the almost-fully-trained soldier was a rather big loss.


"Only few people know how much one has to know in order to know how little one knows." - Werner Heisenberg

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2014-12-07, 04:08

wl-zocker wrote:

Having to produce many different weapons is also an interesting economic aspect. The weapon smith works as follows:
If the most basic ax is needed, try to produce it. If there are not enough wares, rebegin the whole cycle. If he was successful (or this ax is not needed), check if the second ax is needed. If yes, try to produce it. If there are not enough wares, rebegin the whole cycle (i.e. with the first ax). If successful (or the second ax is not needed), go on to the third ax etc. In between, he always rests a bit to get his stock refilled.
If your economy is bad and the wares are not delivered fast enough, only the basic ax will be produced and you will never have fully trained soldiers.

I have to disagree on the "your economy is bad if the wares are not delivered fast enough". To me, the economy is bad if the wares ARE delivered fast enough. The reason is simple, and is space and resource use optimization.Namely, if new metals and coal are delivered to the warmill (let's keep the barbarian example) then it means you have a surplus. If you have a surplus, then you have metals you are not using. you have lots of mines and farms and such that works at producing metals, and those are just rusting in your warehouses because your warmill is your bottleneck. So just make a new warmill. it only takes a medium slot.

consider how much space it takes to fuel a mine: a farm will require the equivalent of 4 medium slots between building and fields to work properly. Yoou'll need a couple of those, plus a bakery, a couple wells, a brewery, a hunter, a gamekeeper, and an inn to feed a mine. that's something like 16 medium slots. So you may as well go on and use another slot to make another warmill. I'd go further and say that every resource that is accumulated is a wasted resource. modern economy stresses on keeping storages as little as possible. So one should always try to balance things as neatly as possibe. but, since it's impossible to balance the buildings perfectly, some ware will necessarily be in excess, and one will be your bottleneck. and since farms are the buildings that take up most space, it only makes sense that one would not want to waste any of that. So the best way to set up a food chain is to have a shortage of wheat, and a slight excess of everything else. and then to have enough warmills to use up all the metal you produce

I definitely don't like the way warmills/weaponsmiths work. they reward what is in fact a bad economy. they encourage you to keep metal unused in your storage when it could become an army simply by using one extra medium slot. Now, for me it's not a problem: I learned to cope with it simply by stopping my warmills every oncce in a while, build up some metal excess, and then use it. that way I have no metal accumulation, except in the short term. I'm using up all the resources I produce, no waste. The problem is for the AI. computer players will make a bad use of their resource that way. they will either have a bottleneck that will severely slow their troop production, or they will never have good troops. that's one oof the reasons the ai is so weak.

EDIT: in fact, the "wares" graph shows that the ai always has much more wares than me, despite me producing ten times more military power. that's exactly the reason. I optimize my economy so that each and every resource is turned into a soldier. the ai instead willl make a lot of useless resources that willl do no more than clog the roads. I also tend to have lower productivity indicators, because i make more, let's call them secondary buildings (buildings that transform something into something else, e.g. bakery, as opposed to buildings that produce something out of nothing, e.g. well) than needed, to make sure i use all the resources. looking at the indicators, you'd believe my economy to be bad. but I go 1v7 against ai with additional self-impposed limitations (like for example making no coal mines and getting all the coal from burners) and I stilll win, and that should prove that my approach is sound.

Edited: 2014-12-07, 04:18

Top Quote
fk
Avatar
Joined: 2013-07-30, 22:58
Posts: 151
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Posted at: 2014-12-17, 08:52

This game is about economy, warfare is just an afterthought.

Playing strategically = playing economically. Anything else is a waste.

An interesting idea. It would make iron and gold kind of renewable, but would consume even more coal.

Advantages and disadvantages don't matter as long as they are equally spread over the teams.


Top Quote
staustelladam

Joined: 2011-11-24, 22:33
Posts: 70
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2015-01-02, 16:13

A long but interesting thread ... I like the idea that old weapons should be recycled, and the idea that "scrap metal" be a produced resource that can make its way back into the production chain. Some have said that this would place a heavy demand for coal, but if "charcoal" was used as an additional forge fuel then this problem should be overcome due to the "perpetual" nature of trees in the game.


Top Quote