Implements the user's energy management request: "firing from more than 200px
should be a 'not good chances zone' so faster bullets and more chances to hit
matters more than single hit damage with low chances. When we are lower than 50
health, same thing. I would like to use 3.0 power only when the chances of
hitting are higher than average."
Design: a CAP on top of the existing `bestPower`, not a rewrite. `bestPower`
still answers "which bin does this gun's own data prefer"; the policy caps it:
ramming -> 3.0 (reason ram, exempt)
dist > TR_POWER_FAR_DIST (200) -> 1.0 (far)
elif selfEnergy < TR_POWER_LOW_ENERGY (50) -> 1.0 (lowEnergy)
elif pEst <= pRef -> 2.0 (belowAvg)
else -> 3.0 (full)
power = min(gunPreferredBinPower, cap) # can only LOWER power
p=1.0 is the right "low" tier on the measured mechanics: bullet speed 20-3p so
p=1.0 gives speed 17 vs 11 at p=3.0 (55% faster = less lead error), fire
interval 10+2p so 12 ticks vs 16 (33% more shots), and drain 0.083/turn vs
0.1875 (2.25x slower). All three things the user asked for at long range.
pEst = the chosen bin's virtual rate (gun aggregate when the bin is empty);
pRef = the gun's aggregate mean unless TR_POWER_REF > 0. No-data guns are
vacuously below-average -> cap 2.0 (conservative, documented).
Control arm: TR_POWER_POLICY=0 = uncapped = today's behaviour exactly.
Knobs: TR_POWER_POLICY, TR_POWER_FAR_DIST, TR_POWER_LOW_ENERGY,
TR_POWER_FAR_CAP, TR_POWER_MID_CAP, TR_POWER_REF, TR_POWER_LOG.
TR_POWER_MID_CAP exists because the user did not specify the middle case
(close + healthy + not-above-average); 2.0 is the default, flippable to 1.0.
Seam: the cap lives in a pure `applyPowerPolicy` and is applied only in
`selectShot` (the single place real shots are chosen), so the logic is testable
without a battle. Ram is wired from `shouldRam` - the same value the movement
dispatch uses for the (0,50) band.
CORRECTION TO AN ASSUMPTION IN THE TASK: `offline_range.nim` does NOT call
`bestPower`/`selectShot` - it only replays virtual-bullet spawn/resolve across
all power bins, independent of the real shot's power. So there is no offline
power-selection path that could diverge from the live one, and the acceptance
test guards the metric, not the policy. Policy coverage therefore comes from the
new unit test.
Verification: test_power_policy 26/26 in BOTH modes (default and TR_POWER_POLICY=0
control arm); test_gun_harness 39, test_vbullet_metric 11, test_power_selection 3,
test_adaptive_radar 41, test_tfil_ring_weights 24; acceptance_offline_vs_online
12/12 VERDICT PASS (live battle). ModularBot compiles.
UNVERIFIED: the live effect on damage/survival/score. No A/B has run.
SirStone
c9825dfb0b