On 25 April 2013 02:40, Emmet Hikory <[email protected]> wrote: > Looking at the UTYF_BOMBARDER nativity issue, I notice that GNA patches > 1850 (unreachableprotects) and 1851 (capturer/capturable) seem to have > surrounded the prior bombarder code, with the effect that Unreachable > units do not protect other units from being captured or bombarded, > regardless of the setting. > > In the case of capturing units, there is a test to ensure every unit at > the target tile is capturable, but it doesn't also check to see if the > capturable units are reachable, so that if one had a capturable > unreachable unit (e.g. Payroll plane), it could be captured by units > that would normally be unable to target the class (e.g. Horsemen). > > In the case of bombardment, whether a given unit happens to be reachable > is checked as each unit is bombarded, but the stack is always presumed to > be vulnerable, regardless of the server setting. > > As 1851 postdates 1850 in initial envisionment (if not application), and > both postdate the bombarder code, I suspect these behaviours to be > intentional, but thought it worth asking, as they seemed surprising to me. > > After so long time I can't say how long they had been in development before being first submitted (timestamps in patches indicate that "final" versions were created just before submitting, but that's the case with almost all my patches). Given my usual workflow it's entirely possible that despite them having consequtive patch numbers, they have been developet separately even without realizing they could affect each other. Addition of "unreachableprotects" setting certainly was meant to keep old hardcoded behavior when enabled for compatibility of old rulesets.
- ML
_______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
