Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ice Fix: Princess Movement Cryophobia #5037

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

Thom293
Copy link
Contributor

@Thom293 Thom293 commented Jan 10, 2024

Ice Fix: This PR changes one line of code to give Princess some Cryophobia in her movement planning. Currently, On a map with approximately 50/50 Ice/Land, she would jump and walk mechs onto the ice every turn, and lose many to Ice before she ever got to and during combat. With this change she jumped mechs into the ice Zero times in 10 games. And she will still walk on the ice when forced because she is landlocked. Otherwise she will take a land path around.

So in summary, it strongly discourages her from using ice as a path, but does not prevent it when necessary.

I simply changed a calculated hazard value (which has never been enough) to UNIT_DESTRUCTION_FACTOR and that solved it.

I tested it over 10 bot v bot games and could see no drawbacks. A sample savegame is attached below.

ICET1.sav.gz

I attach a screen below that show a patch over ice that Locusts would still take when they deployed landlocked. So it doesnt prevent use of ice entirely.

Screenshot 2024-01-10 101852

…hobia in her movement planning. Currently, On a map with approximately 50/50 Ice/Land, she would jump and walk mechs onto the ice every turn, and lose many before she ever got to combat. With this change she jumped mechs into the ice Zero times in 10 games. And she will still walk on the ice when forced because she is landlocked. Otherwise she will take a land path around.
@Thom293
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thom293 commented Jan 10, 2024

FYI - I only changed line 919. Not sure why it is showing those other changes. I did not make them.

@HoneySkull
Copy link
Collaborator

The checks that failed here are due to a failed jUnit test:

image

@HoneySkull
Copy link
Collaborator

image

The expected hazard value was 166.7 but was actually 1000 with your changes. What would you say the new expected value should be? @Thom293

@gsparks3
Copy link
Collaborator

Hmm ... at first I was going to say that infantry without UMU MP walking onto an ice hex over water is a 1 in 6 chance of instant destruction (ice breaks and they fall in), but reading the TO:AUE rules on page 48 more closely actually seems to imply that infantry do not check for breaking ice when entering a hex - although they can fall in if someone else breaks the ice that they are standing on.

@HoneySkull
Copy link
Collaborator

HoneySkull commented Jan 11, 2024

image

The expected hazard value was 166.7 but was actually 1000 with your changes. What would you say the new expected value should be? @Thom293

@Thom293 - I opened a pull request for your Github fork with jUnit updates if that helps.

The actual values showing in the jUnit test are confirming the harzard score is definitely increased. You may want to review the values to make sure those hazard scores make sense. Cryophobia she has.

@Thom293
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thom293 commented Jan 11, 2024

Thank you. Yes I was just looking at this. Its infantry related. 1000 is the pre-assigned value of UNIT_DESTRUCTION_FACTOR.

Ill send you a message on Discord. Infantry has its own path ranker, so I didnt test it, but if its lumped in here, I need to think about it.

@Thom293
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thom293 commented Jan 11, 2024

Ok, so I think this PR has highlighted a vanilla bug with infantry hazard analysis. They are checking for ice breakage but they dont break ice. That is why this is failiing an infantry test. Im going to withdraw this one and see if I can fix the infantry bug along with this PR and re-submit. If I cant fix the infantry bug, will ask someone else to help and maybe resubmit this.

@Thom293 Thom293 closed this Jan 11, 2024
@Thom293 Thom293 deleted the IceFix branch January 31, 2024 03:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants