<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40086 >
On Feb 7, 2008 1:12 PM, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40086 > > > In PR#40072, I've found a third error that only showed in the server log. > Examination of the savegame data confirmed: > > 2: Loading rulesets > 1: player1.c1.workers not working city center at "Middelburg". > 1: player1.c5.workers not working city center at "Tenochtitl?n". > 1: player2.c0.workers not working city center at "Chiauhtia". > > After much testing, the savegame load can automatically correct this defect. > Unfortunately, fixing this immediately results in the following message: > > 1: Tile at Tenochtitl?n->49,11 (city center) marked as worked but occupied by > an enemy unit! > > This tells me that the reason that some city centers are not worked would be > invasion. But that should have been resolved already!?!? So there's a bug where a city can be invaded but not change hands. This is an impossible situation to begin with and needs to be tracked down and fixed; trying to decide what "should" happen in such a situation is only going to lead to headache. > Here's a picture of my current test code display. Apparently, these cities > are captured as soon as the game is loaded. Per's border algorithm doesn't > update until the next turn, so border islands happen! Correct; that always bugged me but it's not a cause of bugs (just very ugly). > Worse, the arrange worker code should *NEVER* remove the worker at the city > center! Does anybody remember how/where this is done? Or who wrote it? Well there should *NEVER* be an enemy unit at the city center either, nor should there *EVER* be an enemy-occupied tile that's being worked. But once once of these breaks a second one has to go too. The CM code is in common/aicore/cm.c. -jason _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
