Fixing SMACX Bugs

[vyeh]

Also, p. 12 referring to the Gaians, "... their pacifist leanings undermine the abilities of their military units ...."

The Gaians are the only faction that begins with "very green."

I submit that this documentation clearly intends that Gaians be at a disadvantage and that very green should be an additional -12% from green.

I agree that -25% is harsh, but I think that was intended. I know that all units get a +25% bonus when in a base (p. 104), so this would help the Gaians in defending their bases.

Manual, p. 64, "There are seven levels of Morale ...."

I'd very much like to see why GooglyBoogly reasoning that the -12.5% cap was intentional.

I think the side of caution is to take the manual on face value. Gaians have often been touted as a good faction for beginners. Maybe the Gaians are overpowered because the designers intended that there be a morale hit (the -1 morale) in exchange for the benefits.

[vyeh]

Just to check things out, I created a very green unit in the scenario editor and attacked a green unit. I've attached the combat screen. Note that the very green unit does incur a 25% penalty. Since p. 88 says "Each level of morale gives a +12.5% bonus to the unit, in both offensive and defensive combat," I submit there is a bug when a very green unit defends at -12.5% and attacks at -25%.

If GooglyBoogly can find something to indicate that there should be a -12.5% cap for defending bases for very green units, I don't have a problem with that (perhaps the designers wanted the cap for bases but it got implemented everywhere).

[scient]

Another question regarding Brood Pits where it states in datalinks "Negative lifecycle (aka morale) effects are canceled in base square". So, does this mean say SE morale value is -4 would be treated as 0? Because currently this is how brooding pit (BP) works (without CC).

1. Checking if base has BP and if unit is native.
2. If SE morale (SEM) is < -4, set to -4
3. If SEM is > 4, set to 4
4. If bounded SEM value is < -2, add 1 (-4 => -3, -3 => -2)
5. nUnit_Morale - nSEMVal

This is almost identical to CC except it doesn't have the initial +1 bonus to unit morale value and positive SEM effects aren't negated.

That actually got me thinking. Both CC/BP state that negative effects should be ignored so shouldn't that mean negative SEM values would be treated as 0?

[vyeh]

Looking at Maniac's column, it looks like morale is correct for defending units.

If SE Morale is 0 or positive, it gets a +12.5% bonus.

If SE Morale is -1 or -2 (both are -12.5%), it gets a +25% bonus, which gives it a total of 12.5%

If SE Morale is -3 (-25%), it gets a 37.5% bonus, which gives it a total of 12.5%

If SE Morale is -4 (-37.5%), it gets a 50% bonus, which gives it a total of 12.5%

In short, negative morale effects are ignored (which brings SE Morale to 0 or 0%) and the units get 12.5% bonus (+1 morale).

If the code for BP is the same as for CC except for the initial +1 bonus and the sign error, then it should perform correctly.

[Doux]

I just noted a new bug, which consists in my opinion of two parts:

a) A SAM unit on land can attack a unit flying above the sea. Whether this is not realistic and a bug or not, can be discussed here, but I would say that it is not consistent to let this happen, since normally land-sea attacks are not possible. On the other hand, a SAM unit might have rockets for short distance.

b) If another unit that has stronger defence is also present in that sea square (f.i. a cruiser), that unit is selected as the defender instead of the air unit, which should not be possible unless the SAM unit also has the `amphibious pods' ability. This looks like a true inconsistency bug to me having to do with checks. Apparently the game just checks if an air unit is in the attacked square and if yes, the attack may continue regardless of other factors of importance.

Edit: Another, minor, bug: Miriam started a `elect supreme governor' vote, but she stated that she would accept a certain amount of energy credits to vote `NAY' against her own election. I think this is highly irrealistic - the starter (winner) should always state `I'm sorry, but this matter is far too important to change my position'.

[GooglyBoogly]

re:
a) this also works the other way around, a SAM unit at sea can attack an adjacent aircraft on land, while I'll admit it is strange, I wouldn't call it a bug

[vyeh]

Please note that a land unit cannot attack an air unit unless it has SAM. And a sea unit cannot attack an air unit unless it has SAM.

When a land unit attacks an adjacent air unit that is on a sea square, it is not attacking a sea unit, it is attacking an air unit.

Looking at it from the point of realism, it really shouldn't make a difference to a land unit whether an enemy air unit is over an adjacent sea square or an adjacent land square. They are both the same distance away and in the air. If it has the equipment and software to fire its weapons an hit the air unit, it shouldn't matter whether it is over water. It is not shooting or traveling through the water.

You could see b) as a situation in which the cruiser interposes itself to protect the air unit rather than using its mobility to avoid combat. In such a case, it could be damaged or destroyed.

I could see a scenario where a faction is willing to give up the governorship for a suitable bribe. I don't see this as a bug. Perhaps it rises to the level of an exploit.

[Doux]

I could see a scenario where a faction is willing to give up the governorship for a suitable bribe. I don't see this as a bug. Perhaps it rises to the level of an exploit.

It was not a suitable price at all (some 100 EC), so it really was an exploit.

[BlackCat]

I just noted a new bug, which consists in my opinion of two parts:

a) A SAM unit on land can attack a unit flying above the sea. Whether this is not realistic and a bug or not, can be discussed here, but I would say that it is not consistent to let this happen, since normally land-sea attacks are not possible. On the other hand, a SAM unit might have rockets for short distance.

Artillery can bombard sea units, so your SAM unit isn't alone. And yeah, SAM units do have missiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-Air_Missile

b) If another unit that has stronger defence is also present in that sea square (f.i. a cruiser), that unit is selected as the defender instead of the air unit, which should not be possible unless the SAM unit also has the `amphibious pods' ability. This looks like a true inconsistency bug to me having to do with checks. Apparently the game just checks if an air unit is in the attacked square and if yes, the attack may continue regardless of other factors of importance.

Depends - if the cruiser is a AAA, it makes sense - even if not, since it will start a bombardment.

If there isn't a air unit in that square, it's ok for a SAM unit not being able to attack since there isn't any unit it can attack.

Edit: Another, minor, bug: Miriam started a `elect supreme governor' vote, but she stated that she would accept a certain amount of energy credits to vote `NAY' against her own election. I think this is highly irrealistic - the starter (winner) should always state `I'm sorry, but this matter is far too important to change my position'.

Realpolitk is a strange thing - maybe she need the money more.

[Darsnan]

Realpolitk is a strange thing - maybe she need the money more.

I agree: she could have been calling an election to simply block another person from becoming Governor in a few turns (i.e. someone pop-bomming could grow exponentially in a few turns: by calling an early election it then denies the pop-boomer from winning said election in the nearterm - its been a tactic in some PBEMs I've played in in the past): any bribes Miriam then receives is just icing on the cake.

D

[BlackCat]

Hello scient

You love core dumps - well, here is one - on "end turn" program crashes.

The IoD at 102,2 (more or less) are a possible villain - when I don't pop a SP in that area, I can continue the game

[BlackCat]

Forgot that I had tweaked the game a bit - here is the alphax.txt I use :

[Petek]

I reproduced the crash, using the most recent version of scient's patch and my own alphax.txt (also customized). The problem appears to be with the IOD at coordinates 103,1. When I deleted it via the scenario editor, the crash didn't take place. Guess: This is the problem with units at the poles on large maps.

Petek

Note to scient: This is a bug that might not have been mentioned before. On large maps (not sure what the size limit is, but BlackCat's map qualifies), units at the poles will crash the game when moved. I think
that I've also seen where a unit at the poles becomes "stuck". That is, the unit at the pole can't be moved, but the game doesn't crash.

[BlackCat]

Petek, do you ever sleep

Well,to be honest, it should be me sleeping sincs it's past midnight here

[scient]

Is there anyway to tell the dimensions of the map? Specifically the one you posted BlackCat. It might be useful in understanding a bit of code. I located the area where crash is occurring (easy part) and it seems to be when any unit moves. The problem revolves around a bit that takes current unit location and subtracts/adds a number of what seem to be fixed values ranging from -2 to 2. My guess is that it has to do with area explored or visible to unit after it moves. The problem is at poles it causes an overflow by subtracting 2 from 1 (y coord of that Isle of the Deep) resulting in an offset of -1. This causes a chain reaction where exe tries to access invalid memory and crashes. I'll have to look at it more but my first impression would be to add a check to set value to zero if it goes below zero. I'd like to know what these values actually stand for before I patch anything.

I've been busy with some other stuff so haven't had chance to work on anything new. I take the latest fixed exe has held up so far? Issues in changelog have been sorted properly?

edit: Petek let me know if you can find or make a game where unit gets stuck at poles. I added polar caps to BlackCat's games and could move units along North pole edges without problems.