There's another change I've been thinking about, and as long I have to put up a new version anyway ...
Not exactly a bug, but still something I think should be fixed. There's a bit of an oddity when comparing multiple units - consider the following 3 units:
A - odds 700 (value-adjusted odds 550)
B - odds 600 (value-adjusted odds 350)
C - odds 500
Where value-wise, A>B>C
Compare A to B, and B would be picked (600>550)
Compare A to C, and A would be picked (550>500)
Compare B to C, and C would be picked (500>350)
Which is fine so far ... but the problem is, when all 3 units are considered, which unit ends up defending depends on the order in which the units are compared! Start with A,B and C will defend ... start with A,C and B will defend ... start with B,C and A will defend ...
The problem stems from the fact that the ranking used for B depends on who you're comparing against (600 vs A ... 350 vs C) - or in general because I only adjust the ranking for value when a unit is more valuable then the other unit.
To fix that, I'm planning to make two changes:
1) Change the way it values experience to use tiers - say 10 XP is worth 1 ... 20 XP is worth 2 ... 40 XP is worth 3 ... 80 XP is worth 4 ... etc. Alternatively I could just use level, but that would penalize units that hold off on taking a promotion. And of course, I'd need to increase the value given for general/limited/healer (I'm thinking 5/5/2) to keep XP from being overvalued.
2) Change the way value adjusted odds are calculated to use the actual value rating (instead of only adjusting if more valuable) - say odds + (odds-850)*(value/5)
That would make a units ranking independent of who you're comparing against, so the order of comparison would no longer matter.