[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21239 (project freeciv): I did not explain properly the first verion. I'll use your question about the surrounded warrior to try to clarify both versions. version 1)Penalty when a unit adjacent to an enemy unit attacks any other tile. version 2) Penalty when a unit adjacent to an enemy unit attacks another tile adjacent to an enemy unit. The first attack of a surrounded warrior will always be penalized in both versions. In v1, if the warrior kills 7 of the surrounding enemies, he can attack the 8th enemy without penalty because there is no other enemy adjacent. All attacks would be penalized except the last one. In v2, if the warrior kills the 4 enemies in the corners (or the 4 in the cross), he can attack to the other 4 enemies without penalties because the target tile would not be adjacent to another enemy. Version2 uses exactly the same rules than ZoC and I guess it would be easier to implement. I'm glad you like it, because I think freeciv really needs some kind of tactical rule. I was working on a WW2 scenario and I realized that battles without research/building are plain boring. You just need to stack pile all your units in a fortress over the best defensive position and attack other locations from there. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21239 ___ Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4288] S2_5 README.packaging: Mention lua version update
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4288 Summary: S2_5 README.packaging: Mention lua version update Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Wed 30 Oct 2013 11:26:41 AM EET Category: docs Priority: 5 - Normal Status: Ready For Test Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.5.0 ___ Details: Document update from lua5.1 to lua5.2 in S2_5 README.packaging ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Wed 30 Oct 2013 11:26:41 AM EET Name: Lua52Doc-S2_5.patch Size: 885B By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=19291 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4288 ___ 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 #4011] Lua: edit.change_terrain and edit.place_resource
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4011 (project freeciv): cont is probably short for continent. You are not setting continent id correctly ( 0 indicates the tile is oceanic). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4011 ___ 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 #21240] AI thinking city has Size Unlimit when it has not
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21240 Summary: AI thinking city has Size Unlimit when it has not Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Wed 30 Oct 2013 12:22:21 PM EET Category: ai Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: Ready For Test Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: None Planned Release: 2.4.1, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Details: AI checks if city already has size unlimited by comparing effect value == 0. In custom rulesets with only disabling effects active (without prior enabling effect) value can be 0. In such a case AI would not build size adj or size unlimit buildings at all. Fix attached. Also don't consider Size Unlimit disabling effects positive thing (equal to enabling effects) ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Wed 30 Oct 2013 12:22:21 PM EET Name: SizeUnlimitFix.patch Size: 1kB By: cazfi http://gna.org/bugs/download.php?file_id=19292 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21240 ___ 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 #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21239 (project freeciv): So essentially what you are saying is that as soon as a unit comes against multiple units, it will be at a disadvantage against all of them. I have to say i don't like that idea. Any attacker should be able to still move 'forward' and attack in one direction without penalty. Otherwise it is doomed as soon as it becomes adjacent to that second unit. You mentioned WW2, and it is in thinking about those battles that we have to consider this idea. Many of the great actions then were won by fast units breaking through enemy lines, and EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE ENEMIES ON BOTH SIDES, carrying the attack through to softer targets in the rear area. Your idea would make that practically impossible to simulate in game terms. I consider this separate from the defender in impassible terrain. I still agree that those attacks should be disallowed, or limited to pure bombardment. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21239 ___ 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 #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21239 (project freeciv): Attached image with visual example. Green line: normal attack Red line: ZoC penalized attack Blue line: varies from v1 to v2 (isolated unit always attacked without penalty in v2) I do not know how this rule would affect the AI, but it already likes to send waves of units that will be more effective with this optional rule than with current rules. (file #19294) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: ZoC_Penalty.jpgSize:154 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21239 ___ Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #21239 (project freeciv): So essentially what you are saying is that as soon as a unit comes against multiple units, it will be at a disadvantage against all of them Yes, sounds to me like in practice this would give constant defense bonus for defense lines (where units on different tiles provide ZOC-protection to each other). AI does not build such lines, so maybe it wouldn't be big problem for someone playing against AI only (but would hurt any attempts of AI to attack human player defense lines). Line of fortresses (+50%, protection against stack-death) on hills-range (+50%) with fortified (+50%) units is already very hard to break even with superior units. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21239 ___ 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 #21242] AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21242 Summary: AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Wed 30 Oct 2013 03:04:28 PM EET Category: ai Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: None Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Details: This is something that has been bothering me for some time. Classic ruleset has buildings as requirements for building spaceship parts. AI does not build these buildings, at least not for building spaceship (it does not value buildings based on thefact that they are requirement for spaceship). The result is that I have not seen AI to build spaceship in any of the hundreds of autogames with classic ruleset I've run. As default ruleset is meant for single-player games against AI (multiplayer ruleset is for multiplayer games), I think it makes sense to change the rules for the benefit of AI understanding them - to remove the building requirements (or at least to change them to buildings AI builds anyway). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21242 ___ 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 #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #21239 (project freeciv): My suggestion tries to make these waves of units a valid tactic, as we see in most wargames. I agree and if there is a possibility to control with Lua script these waves... it's very interesting. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21239 ___ 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 #21108] Tiny score-window
Update of bug #21108 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21108 ___ 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 #21060] Cosmetic issues in Windows installer language selection
Update of bug #21060 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to: cproc = None Planned Release: = 2.4.1, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #4: Patch worked. New, hopefully final, version: - Also sdl-client package handled - Have also language code visible as in Finnish (fi) (file #19295) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: NsisRealLangNames-2.patch Size:3 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21060 ___ 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 #21159] 'mapimg colortest' causes assertion failures and server disconnection
Update of bug #21159 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21159 ___ 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 #21242] AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21242 (project freeciv): Do you know this to be new behaviour? I've certainly seen AI build spaceships in autogames (once I saw it sit with a complete but unlaunched spaceship for thousands of years while all its land sank beneath the waves, but that's another matter). I can probably dig out the autogame if you want a reference. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21242 ___ 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 #21242] AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21242 (project freeciv): Do you know this to be new behaviour? While I remember the time AI was actively building spaceships (and even the time before that when it wasn't able to build spaceships), I don't think the behavior I'm seeing is *new* in freeciv development timescale (maybe introduced in 2.0). If you've seen AI to build spaceships *in classic ruleset*, then it does work. I've seen it happen only in rulesets without such improvement requirements for spaceship parts. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21242 ___ 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 #21242] AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21242 (project freeciv): If you've seen AI to build spaceships *in classic ruleset*, then it does work. Attached is an example endgame from 2.3.4 with the default (now classic) ruleset where several AIs have spaceships and I think the game is won by space race. (And we've had a Factory requirement for spaceship parts for ages, certainly in 2.3 and 2.2.) (I was testing unusual map dimensions -- bug #20792 -- but I don't think that's necessary; unfortunately most of the autogames I still have lying around that might be with newer code no longer load in current versions, so I'd have to build a special old trunk build to check. I probably haven't done any autogames with post-2.4 code.) I wonder what's different from you? My autogame settings are unremarkable: set gameseed 374362 set mapseed 123814 set savename=autogame set timeout -1 set ec_turns 0 set aifill 7 set saveturns 1 set minplayers 0 set mapsize xysize set xsize 500 set yszie 250 set topology wrapx|iso hard create Caesar start (yes, I did typo yszie) once I saw it sit with a complete but unlaunched spaceship for thousands of years while all its land sank beneath the waves I think bug #17953 description refers to this incident; however, I don't seem to still have the files around to check my recollection. (file #19296) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: autogame-T0406-Y01620-auto.sav.bz2 Size:373 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21242 ___ 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 #3959] Assign defenders for their martial law value
Update of patch #3959 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3959 ___ 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 #20031] Amplio2 missing Maglev gfx
Update of bug #20031 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Planned Release: 2.5.0 = 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Here's the maglev gfx I've used on my own ruleset. It just the rails gfx with brown changed to blue. I guess this can go in as a placeholder. (file #19298, file #19299) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: Amplio2Maglev.patchSize:1 KB File name: maglev.png Size:3 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20031 ___ 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] [task #7681] Distribute Windows build of Gtk3 client
Update of task #7681 (project freeciv): Planned Release: 2.5.0 = 2.4.1, 2.5.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: http://www.gtk.org/download/win32.php now lists gtk+-3.6.4 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/task/?7681 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
