<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39323 >

Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39323 >
> On 4/4/07, Jason Dorje Short <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's a shot from later in the game.  The city of Kobe is the original
>> source of the borders; the others were added later.  You can see the
>> 'bad' ocean tile is closer to Kobe than the adjacent land tiles.  If it
>> were a land tile there would be no problem I guess - but since it's an
>> ocean tile that 'counts' as a land tile for border checking, it looks bad.
> I am not entirely sure what you think is mistaken here. Should the
> whale tile fall under borders, is that it? The current rules for ocean
> tiles and borders are:
>   a) it is an inland lake not larger than MAXIMUM_OCEAN_SIZE
>   b) it is adjacent to only one continent and not more than two ocean tiles
>   c) It is one tile away from a city
>   The source which claims the ocean has to be placed on the correct continent.
>   in case a) The continent which surrounds the inland lake
>   in case b) The only continent which is adjacent to the tile
> The whale tile has more than two adjacent ocean tiles, as far as I can
> tell. We could relax the one continent condition if the same player
> owns the tiles on the far shore, I guess.

I'm well aware that the code is following the rules for border placement
we have.  My point is that those rules are not good.

In particular since we have gradually-expanding borders, I think rule B
should be changed: instead of needing to be adjacent to a CONTINENT tile
it should check for adjacency to any owned tile.

something like

b) over half of the adjacent tiles are also owned by you


b) it is adjacent to only one player's terrain and not more than two
unclaimed ocean tiles

This would likely also allow (a) to be dropped.


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to