feat: Obliterated Buff

[KRdaMystic]

Purpose of changes

Address glaring issues with the Obliterated disadvantage that made Fleet-Based chapters suboptimal when compared to Homeworld counterparts, additionally adjusted fleet composition for Homeworld chapters.
Changes Obliterated's interaction with the strength bar so it now properly works.

Describe the solution

Added an else statement to the if statement for Obliterated that properly checks if a chapter is Homeworld based or not and changes the Fleet composition.
Changed how bonus marines are calculated for Obliterated chapters by adjusting the floor in its equation.

Describe alternatives you've considered

None

Testing done

Compiled, new game with Str 1 and fleet based , new game with Str 2 and Homeworld based.

Player notes

Obliterated buff as discussed and decided in the "Obliterated Chapter rework" thread started by Werwolf

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

This update refines key gameplay mechanics, ensuring a more balanced and engaging experience. The adjustments enhance how in-game disadvantages affect outcomes and fine-tune bonus rewards based on player strength.

• Refactor
  • Enhanced disadvantage handling with context-sensitive adjustments for more dynamic gameplay.
  • Revised bonus reward scaling to more accurately reflect player strength and ensure balanced outcomes.

Walkthrough

By the sacred circuits of the Machine Spirit, this update revises the scr_initialize_custom function. The ritual now examines the fleet_type to decree which values are bestowed upon the variables battle_barges, strike_cruisers, gladius, and hunters. Should the fleet be of the ePlayerBase.home_world, one set of values is ordained; otherwise, an alternate blessing is applied. Furthermore, the computation for bonus_marines in the presence of the "Obliterated" disadvantage has been adjusted—from the formula (obj_creation.strength - 5) * 10 to (obj_creation.strength - 1) * 10. The exportations and declarations remain unaltered as decreed by the Code.

Possibly related PRs

• fix: Trait cost adjustments #490: Adjusts disadvantage handling for "Tech-Heresy", involving similar initialization logic.
• fix: Equal specialist distr fix for obliterated #484: Modifies the scr_initialize_custom function for the "Obliterated" disadvantage; focuses on different facets of the logic.

Suggested labels

PR: Feature, Size: Medium

Suggested reviewers

• OH296

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c6b51f6 and 5d2f570.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• scripts/scr_initialize_custom/scr_initialize_custom.gml (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

scripts/scr_initialize_custom/scr_initialize_custom.gml (2)

729-740: Praise to the Omnissiah for this logical enhancement!

The binary switch logic now properly differentiates between home_world and fleet-based chapters when the "Obliterated" disadvantage is present. This adjustment corrects the previous imbalance that unfavorably impacted Fleet-Based chapters.

For home_world chapters:

battle_barges = 0
strike_cruisers = 2
gladius = 1
hunters = 0

For fleet-based chapters:

battle_barges = 1
strike_cruisers = 0
gladius = 2
hunters = 0

This modification ensures that fleet-based chapters retain a battle barge, which is vital for their operational function in the machine-spirit of the game.

---

1032-1032: The recalibration of bonus_marines calculation is most logical!

This alteration modifies the formula for calculating bonus_marines when the "Obliterated" disadvantage is present from (obj_creation.strength - 5) * 10 to (obj_creation.strength - 1) * 10.

The new formula provides a more favorable computation for chapters with this disadvantage, allowing them to receive a greater allocation of Space Marines based on their strength value. This numerical enhancement effectively buffs chapters with the "Obliterated" disadvantage as intended by the machine spirits.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai or @coderabbitai title anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[Blogaugis]

Will conflict with #536 . You sure you want obliterated as a "wholesome package", instead of splitting them into relevant traits, allowing players more customization?

[KRdaMystic]

Will conflict with #536 . You sure you want obliterated as a "wholesome package", instead of splitting them into relevant traits, allowing players more customization?

I can tell you with confidence that atomizing Obliterated into separate traits has a bad ROI you are creating more minor traits that must be balanced while if there was more nuance to some they could be interesting (Lost Fleet). My thinking is becoming more partial to Etty's in that a bunch of minor traits to fill the ranks is a poor choice when someone could just change the chapter creation system in addition to the idea that starting traits should have more tangible effects.

[Blogaugis]

I can tell you with confidence that atomizing Obliterated into separate traits has a bad ROI you are creating more minor traits that must be balanced while if there was more nuance to some they could be interesting (Lost Fleet). My thinking is becoming more partial to Etty's in that a bunch of minor traits to fill the ranks is a poor choice when someone could just change the chapter creation system in addition to the idea that starting traits should have more tangible effects.

Then I naturally have to ask:
What is the intended scope of obliterated disadvantage? Currently:
It affects the gene-seed stock amount (less than sieged);
It affects the player's starting navy (arguably the most limiting feature);
It affects the land force composition of player.

In comparison to sieged, the older way to get something akin to "zero-to-hero" scenarios,
It affects the gene-seed stocks;
It affects the available equipment on start;
It affects the starting land force composition.
So... what would you want to do about sieged? Because I think it also needs some attention.

[KRdaMystic]

Then I naturally have to ask: What is the intended scope of obliterated disadvantage? Currently: It affects the gene-seed stock amount (less than sieged); It affects the player's starting navy (arguably the most limiting feature); It affects the land force composition of player.

The players asked for a bare-minimum start this is the closest you can get without failing outright as requested.

In comparison to sieged, the older way to get something akin to "zero-to-hero" scenarios, It affects the gene-seed stocks; It affects the available equipment on start; It affects the starting land force composition. So... what would you want to do about sieged? Because I think it also needs some attention.

Sieged is the "Medium" difficulty equivalent currently not nearly as challenging as obliterated but harder than the average playthrough. If you think it needs attention thats okay but if you're the only one that thinks that you'll just be nerfing it unnecesarily.

[Blogaugis]

The players asked for a bare-minimum start this is the closest you can get without failing outright as requested.

Sieged is the "Medium" difficulty equivalent currently not nearly as challenging as obliterated but harder than the average playthrough. If you think it needs attention thats okay but if you're the only one that thinks that you'll just be nerfing it unnecesarily.

My main issue with obliterated versus sieged is that these affect different things.
sieged leaves fleet alone. obliterated does not.
sieged gives equipment. obliterated does not.
So, while arguably true that it is "Medium" and "Very Hard" difficulties, they affect different things, which bothers me.

[KRdaMystic]

My main issue with obliterated versus sieged is that these affect different things. sieged leaves fleet alone. obliterated does not. sieged gives equipment. obliterated does not. So, while arguably true that it is "Medium" and "Very Hard" difficulties, they affect different things, which bothers me.

They affect different things because they were designed with different contexts in mind "Sieged" has always had a description that mentions retaining a normal amount of equipment following a siege and is inspired by the Crimson Fists chapter. "Obliterated" was designed as requested by me but with the Celestial Lions chapter as inspiration.

You can possibly argue sieged having a smaller fleet in some cases but I'm not removing the equipment.