[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3990] Ruleset defined number of movement fragments
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3990 Summary: Ruleset defined number of movement fragments Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Thu 11 Jul 2013 09:05:04 AM EEST Category: general Priority: 5 - Normal Status: Ready For Test Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Make number of fragments each movement point is divided to (SINGLE_MOVE) ruleset defined. Also make number of fragments IgTer move takes ruleset configurable. Compared to just making hardcoded SINGLE_MOVE bigger to always use higher resolution this approach has the benefits that movement costs can be shown in a way more meaningful for current ruleset (1/3 instead of 33/100 as smallest possible value) and also those values can be used in ruleset definitions. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Thu 11 Jul 2013 09:05:04 AM EEST Name: MoveFragments.patch Size: 13kB By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=18248 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3990 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3906] Road movement cost granularity.
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3906 (project freeciv): My approach in patch #3990 is to make number of fragments ruleset configurable. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3906 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3990] Ruleset defined number of movement fragments
Update of patch #3990 (project freeciv): Planned Release: 2.6.0 = 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: I'd like to get this to S2_5 too (patch applies as is) despite it being potentially buggy for stable branch (do all places that should use SINGLE_MOVE do?) With hardcoded SINGLE_MOVE of 3 there's not much space for defining rulesets with multiple roads as improvements over each other. In fact, if one wants each road to at least double the speed, there's only the classic ruleset route of (3/3 (no road) - 1/3 (road) - 0/3 (railroad)). This patch makes new generalized roads feature of 2.5 much more useful as one could have more granulanity in road movement cost (16/16 - 8/16 - 4/16 - 2/16 - 1/16 - 0/16) Further, if this is accepted, experimental ruleset could be tweaked to take advantage of it. Currently (2/3 (road) - 1/3 (railroad) - 0/3 (maglev)) i.e., road not even halving movement cost, could be (2/4 (road) - 1/4 (railroad) - 0/3 (maglev)) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3990 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20567] Map generation retry mapseed not reproducible
Update of bug #20567 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Planned Release: = 2.5.0, 2.6.0 Summary: Lua random() not really random = Map generation retry mapseed not reproducible ___ Follow-up Comment #11: - Start positions are not based on mapseed - Mapseed does not depend on time() but only on gameseed (file #18250) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: Mapseed-3.patchSize:1 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20567 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3967] Mining_Pct effect
Update of patch #3967 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3967 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3985] Use requirements of type extra in supplied rulesets
Update of patch #3985 (project freeciv): Summary: Ues requirements of type extra in supplied rulesets = Use requirements of type extra in supplied rulesets ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3985 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3458] Bases roads ( specials?) to same vector in savegames
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3458 (project freeciv): Extras implementation is now in patch #3971. As 2.5 savegame format is not yet frozen, we could change it to match that if we want to avoid different format in just 2.5. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3458 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3971] Save extras vector
Update of patch #3971 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3971 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20946] Missing #include stdint.h
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #20946 (project freeciv): Original submitter here. No autoconf involved; I ran the original configure script that came in the tarball. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20946 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20886] Fortresses can be used to take over territory within peaceful neighbour's city radius
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #20886 (project freeciv): As a longturn player I dislike this new change. In longturn we already have a pre-fortress base that prevents the sudden building of a fortress in enemy territory. It gives time for the territory owner to destroy the construction before a fortress is built. Please add a ruleset option so that this change can be turned off ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20886 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20886] Fortresses can be used to take over territory within peaceful neighbour's city radius
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #20886 (project freeciv): - One should be able to build fortress at least when in war. It's not uncommon for me to build fortress as beachhead to enemy island (preferably to spot enemy cannot see even if it's within borders) for no-stack-death especially. Then I can ship attackers there as much as I want (= as long as I want with limited transport capacity). - I don't think comment #3 makes sense when this is about preventing building fortress to peaceful nation - how do you prevent (without killing the builder) peaceful player from building the base Then again, maybe building the fortress should be always allowed, but the change is made to who owns the fortress in the end. Maybe fortress should be considered owned by the border owner by default, and then same rules applied as when unit enters empty fortress - you can take enemy fortress but not allied (you shouldn't be able to take peaceful fortress, but I'm not sure if anybody has ever considered that case in implementation) For one, that would allow one to help allies by building fortresses (not so far-fetched idea in our slow-research games where ally may be far from learning Construction while I already have it and want to stop common enemy) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20886 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3993] Remove unit_activity_handling_(base|road)()
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3993 Summary: Remove unit_activity_handling_(base|road)() Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Fri 12 Jul 2013 07:54:14 AM EEST Category: general Priority: 5 - Normal Status: Ready For Test Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Now that activity target is known by extra id, there's no need to have separate functions to handle activities targeted to bases and roads. Currently they actually just add overhead - we start with correct type (extra_type pointer), but convert them to ones (Base or Road id) the functions can convert back to correct ones. Just remove the obsolete functions. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Fri 12 Jul 2013 07:54:14 AM EEST Name: ActHandBaseroadRm.patch Size: 3kB By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=18258 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3993 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
