[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4387] Store client options inside .freeciv/
Follow-up Comment #8, patch #4387 (project freeciv): Just a quick note that I've tried to get fontconfig in crosser (cross-compilation to windows) updated. While going through fontconfig mailing lists to see if the problems I'm encountering are already reported, I notice how all the Windows build problems with new fontconfig-2.11.0 seem to be caused by new XDG compliance code... XDG requiring working symlinks, to be exact. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4387 ___ 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 #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #21115 (project freeciv): For effect reqs nreqs, I think the plan now is: S2_4: nreqs must be used, patch ruleset sanity checking to disallow negated = TRUE reqs 2.6: nreqs are to be removed (or only deprecated?). present = FALSE reqs must be used. What about S2_5? Is it transition version where both are supposed to work? Or do we handle it like S2_4? If both are supported, which method is the preferred one (especially for new rulesets, should we recommend safe-and-reliable nreqs, or less-work-in-future-update present = FALSE. Also, supplied rulesets should use what ever is the preferred method - maybe it's simply too late in stabilization to make present = FALSE the default now?) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21115 ___ 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 #17887] Tech prerequisites misdisplayed in help if root_req set
Update of bug #17887 (project freeciv): Depends on: = patch #4399 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?17887 ___ 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 #17887] Tech prerequisites misdisplayed in help if root_req set
Update of bug #17887 (project freeciv): Depends on: = patch #4397 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?17887 ___ 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 #17887] Tech prerequisites misdisplayed in help if root_req set
Update of bug #17887 (project freeciv): Depends on: = bugs #21435 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?17887 ___ 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 #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably
Follow-up Comment #12, bug #21115 (project freeciv): Oh, if we are still going to release 2.3.5, sanity check patch planned for S2_4 should go to S2_3 too. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21115 ___ 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 #21414] Huts in S2_5 savegame loaded into trunk as pollution
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21414 (project freeciv): It's a bit of a mess that roads use compatibility definitions in ruleset (ROCO_xxx) while other specials are converted by rule_name. Former is introduced in 2.5, so it's not yet been in any release nor is format yet frozen - maybe we should still change it to use rule_name (road rule_name in case of S2_5) That wouldn't be as simple handle roads like (other) extras change as I thought. Roads are no longer part of specials array, and I certainly don't want to add them back just to get this to work. I'm inclined to leave it as it is - though it's causing savegame handling code to be more messy, we already have more brute force cleanup method planned for savegame code (in 3.0 drop support for loading save versions handled by savegame.c and 'rm --force --force --force savegame.?', make copy of savegame2.c as savegame3.c that handles 3.0+ saves, and drop all backward compatibility code for older versions from it, savegame2.c keeps on collecting cruft until it's time to drop support for loading pre-3.0 savegames) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21414 ___ 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 #4377] Remove hardcoded restriction that huts cannot exist on Oceanic terrains
Update of patch #4377 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4377 ___ 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 #21416] Alien ruleset specialists don't have human-friendly names or descriptions
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21416 (project freeciv): Presumably because it predates the names being ruleset defineable. Let's add some history here in case it helps with some other issues: 1) Alien ruleset started off as copy from my stub ruleset 2) Both stub ruleset and alien ruleset (until it itself entered freeciv repo) have been kept updated format-wise mainly by diffing default/classic ruleset revisions via our svn repository web-interface http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/freeciv/trunk/data/classic/ 3) It seems something has gone awry (human error most likely) when some specialist related changes were made to ruleset format/default ruleset. I now noticed that stub ruleset, and all rulesets since derived from it have outdated comments documenting specialists. Alien ruleset is an interesting case that it has been somewhat updated, but with poor (copypaste?) results - I'll fix that in new ticket. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21416 ___ 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 #4404] Copy specialists related ruleset comments from classic to alien
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4404 Summary: Copy specialists related ruleset comments from classic to alien Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Sat 04 Jan 2014 01:00:25 PM EET Category: rulesets 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, 2.6.0 ___ Details: As noted in bug #21416, alien ruleset comment section about specialists was not correct - at some update parts of old documentation has remained while updated one has been added, resulting in duplicate slightly different entries. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Sat 04 Jan 2014 01:00:25 PM EET Name: AlienSpecialistRSComments.patch Size: 721B By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=19663 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4404 ___ 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 #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 Summary: Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 11:31:01 2014 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.5.0,2.6.0 ___ Details: We used to have: New hope sweeps like fire through the country as the discovery of railroad is announced. Workers spontaneously gather and upgrade all cities with railroads. (from upgrade_city_rails()) But now we have gen_roads this message is forced to be the rather more clumsy: New hope sweeps like fire through the country as the discovery of new road building technology is announced. Workers spontaneously gather and upgrade all possible cities with better roads. and similar for bases. If we emitted a Lua signal in this circumstance (AlwaysOnCityCenter/AutoOnCityCenter), rulesets could override the message with a more appropriate one. We could keep the current messages as a fallback in default.lua. (Or possibly messages which mention the base/road name.) (The existing tech_researched signal isn't far off being usable for this, but wouldn't be able to distinguish whether any cities were in fact upgraded.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 ___ 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 #21416] Alien ruleset specialists don't have human-friendly names or descriptions
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21416 (project freeciv): It seems something has gone awry (human error most likely) when some specialist related changes were made to ruleset format/default ruleset (This happened in patch #2050 for 2.3.0, if that helps.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21416 ___ 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 #4392] Hidden resources which can be revealed by tech advances
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4392 (project freeciv): Also, rather than implementing simple reveal-and-never-hide feature, I think more general appear and disappear framework that could model anything of revealing, hiding, depleting, actual appearance and disappearance, growing, falling from the sky, blocking, worker's strike, etc would be in order. Mm. Part of the reason I chose reveal-and-never-hide semantics was that it was nice and simple to implement, and didn't require some way for players to remember I'm sure there used to be stoats on this tile without keeping it all in their head. This concern is specific to the cases where player knowledge is kept incomplete. Actual appearance and disappearance in the real world is easier to handle (again, provided there isn't hidden state in a tile that indicates its likeliness to spawn stoats at some point in future). I'm not sure what shape such a framework would take, beyond using requirements to trigger the various changes. I guess you're thinking of something a bit lit the extra-causes system? I'd be tempted to have a go at this for 2.5, I would oppose. [...] Fair enough. There wouldn't have been time, anyway. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4392 ___ 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 #4387] Store client options inside .freeciv/
Follow-up Comment #9, patch #4387 (project freeciv): (Since we're discussing the XDG directory spec here) another thing that makes me a bit uneasy about using that for Freeciv is that it mandates a default fallback to a system-wide directory (under /etc/xdg) for config. I'm not sure that's appropriate for .freeciv-client-rc, although I can't quite articulate why. I like the current property of being able to blow it away from my home directory and restore factory configuration without having to go on a hunt to determine which system-wide files and environment variables might be changing my experience from the developer default (e.g. when reporting bugs upstream), and I'm struggling to see many realistic applications for a system-wide client RC. Windows build problems with new fontconfig-2.11.0 seem to be caused by new XDG compliance code... XDG requiring working symlinks, to be exact. Hmm, I don't notice anything explicit in the base directory spec requiring symlinks -- is it an implied requirement? Or could it be a different XDG spec? -- fontconfig is a freedesktop.org (fka XDG) project http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fontconfig/, after all. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4387 ___ 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 #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4405 (project freeciv): Don't know if it matters, but remember that it's not necessarily exactly new tech made one new road generally possible. Even classic ruleset has Bridge Building technology that doesn't allow *new* road types, but one to build existing roads on river tiles. In theory one could even get Railroad first (by diplomacy or stealing) and then discovery of Bridge Building would give both roads and railroads on river city centers. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 ___ 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 #4392] Hidden resources which can be revealed by tech advances
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4392 (project freeciv): This concern is specific to the cases where player knowledge is kept incomplete. Right. What I have had in mind system where the extras get actually created when they should be made visible, rather than keeping them hidden from players until then. I take it the difference between the two systems (property that one player can know the extra and the other not) is important to you? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4392 ___ 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 #4392] Hidden resources which can be revealed by tech advances
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4392 (project freeciv): I take it the difference between the two systems (property that one player can know the extra and the other not) is important to you? Absolutely -- I think it's vital for certain rulesets involving strategic resources. You don't even know where to look for oil until you have appropriate tech, so you can't spend the entire game from the bronze age defending territory with oil because you know it'll be useful in 2000 years; and you can befriend someone with higher tech and get their map to find it (or maybe steal their map). (CivIV has this notion, don't know about previous versions.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4392 ___ 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 #4392] Hidden resources which can be revealed by tech advances
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #4392 (project freeciv): Civ III has it. It just that I always thought that it would be better if resources were revealed to everybody when first one reached the required tech - even if you don't know the tech details well enough to use it yourself, there's some leakage about its nature (I can't build combustion engines myself, but I still know that they need Oil). For multiplayer game balance it would be nice if player already leading wouldn't have additional benefit of knowing which geographical areas are important - I'd like to know strenghten my defenses where I have resources enemy is hungry for. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4392 ___ 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 #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4405 (project freeciv): Don't know if it matters, but remember that it's not necessarily exactly new tech made one new road generally possible. Indeed, it's not necessarily a tech that triggers it any more (although I think that's all we'll handle at the moment?) Would probably need to iterate over each road/base type and then cities inside that. Even classic ruleset has Bridge Building technology that doesn't allow new road types, but one to build existing roads on river tiles. Playing on trunk, I had noticed getting one of these messages when I learned Bridge Building, and wondered why. I had not noticed that we'd got rid of free city bridges in the classic ruleset by not having AlwaysOnCityCenter, although now I see it was discussed extensively in patch #3522 and patch #3826. We should remember to put that in NEWS. In fact this is an example of where a ruleset custom message would be really useful -- I can't see it being practical to have the core game engine come up with a sensible description of this. I'm now thinking a signal like: bool city_infrastructure_upgraded(extra, reason, cause) * extra somehow describes which base/road has been enabled. Could be just a string, or we could add bases/roads/extras as first-class Lua types and pass one of those. * reason textually describes what triggered the upgrade: ** Techs: similar set to tech_researched, but qualified by tech_: tech_researched, tech_traded, tech_stolen, tech_hut -- allows discovery to be distinguished ** Others: another plausible place we should be calling upgrade_all_city_extras() is on building wonders, to enable a wonder/building tech. (Should this even be limited to the current player? -- this is a new ticket, anyway) We'd have building_* (or just building) reason for that. * cause is the specific tech, building, etc that triggered the upgrade (this can be a first class Lua type). So for the classic ruleset our signal handler would go something like: * Is reason tech_* with cause Bridge Building: print a new message Discovery of Bridge Building leads workers to build bridges in all your river cities. * Else, if reason is tech_*, print the traditional new hope or the people are pleased message, either switching on tech/extra names or just using a default fallback in default.lua which mentions extra names. * Else: shouldn't happen (no wonders cause upgrades in default rulesets), so do nothing. (Maybe default.lua does have words for this, however.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 ___ 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 #21436] Connect with rail can no longer build roads first
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21436 Summary: Connect with rail can no longer build roads first Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 13:44:38 2014 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: S2_5, trunk Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Any Planned Release: 2.5.0,2.6.0 ___ Details: On S2_5 and trunk, if I try to direct a worker unit to connect-with-rail (shift-L) in a place where there are no roads, it is prohibited (I get a red-circle-with-line-through cursor). In 2.4.x the unit built the roads first. This is presumably caused by gen-roads, and might be hard to solve in general, but it is a bit of an annoying regression, increasing micromanagement. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21436 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
On 4 January 2014 15:29, Jacob Nevins no-reply.invalid-addr...@gna.org wrote: I had not noticed that we'd got rid of free city bridges in the classic ruleset by not having AlwaysOnCityCenter, although now I see it was discussed extensively in patch #3522 and patch #3826. We should remember to put that in NEWS. Speaking of which, have you collected any 2.5 NEWS notes yet? I don't mean to hurry you, but I'd like to know if that's likely to keep us from releasing beta1 soon after we've got coding related blockers solved. - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21436] Connect with rail can no longer build roads first
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21436 (project freeciv): This is presumably caused by gen-roads, and might be hard to solve in general I assume we will be able to re-use most of the code used to solve similar problem on placing railroads from editor. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21436 ___ 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 #21427] Nationset rule_name mandatory
Update of bug #21427 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to:None = jtn ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Maybe this ticket could then be resolved by adding more comments to default/nationlist.ruleset about how the rule_name is being used How about this patch? (file #19664) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: trunk-nationsets-comments.patch Size:9 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21427 ___ 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 #21403] Pillaging EF_ALWAYS_ON_CITY_CENTER extras from city centers
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21403 (project freeciv): Should it even be possible for units to remove AutoOnCityCenter extras? Since they are liable to pop into existence when a new tech is discovered, I tend to think they should not be removeable. The distinction for me is that AlwaysOnCityCenter overrides other requirements (it would be equivalent to adding an or CityTile(Center) requirement to an AutoOnCityCenter extra, if it were possible to add or rather than and requirements). AutoOnCityCenter should be whenever it's possible for extra to exist on city centre tile, it should exist there, I think? (...maybe we should be checking upgrade_all_city_extras() on city tile terrain change; another ticket...) (Sorry if there's a ticket about this already, but I didn't spot it -- patch #4188 is vaguely in the same area.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21403 ___ 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] Ruleset object deprecation (was: [bug #21428] Number of extras defined by the ruleset (= 8) are lower than the number in the savefile (= 10))
Marko Lindqvist writes: Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21428 (project freeciv): [...] I've started designing Ruleset object deprecation -feature, maybe making its debut in 3.0. I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, so I'd be interested in your ideas. For instance, if advances in rulesets ever allowed us to merge the Aqueduct buildings in civ2civ3 into a smaller set, we'd have a problem with savegames. (That's Aqueduct, Aqueduct, near river, and Aqueduct, near lake.) I was thinking of a simple supersedes list of rule_names for each building (etc) that would cause old names in savegames to be converted to new things; but I haven't thought about it very hard. ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 Summary: Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available) Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 16:27:24 2014 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: trunk r23942 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: GNU/Linux Planned Release: ___ Details: I played a test game with classic ruleset on trunk recently, and one thing I noticed was that my automatic workers were tending to mine hills without coal when there were hills with coal in the radius of the same city. Unless the workers attach importance to their current position, I can't think of a reason they should have preferred the coal-less hills. (In fact I never noticed them choosing to mine coal, so they may have been actively avoiding it, but I don't have evidence for that.) I don't know whether this is a recent regression, or longstanding, although I think we have fixed bugs of this kind in the past. I'm not sure what useful diagnostics I can provide. I've provided a savegame from much later just in case it's useful (although I observed the behaviour right at the start). ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Sat Jan 4 16:27:24 2014 Name: teamgame.sav.bz2 Size: 40kB By: jtn http://gna.org/bugs/download.php?file_id=19665 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21437 (project freeciv): I'm not sure what useful diagnostics I can provide. Savegame is enough for me to check myself, but with future autosettler problems you may want to correlate which tiles city is currently working to ones autosettler starts to improve (the useual ai-considers-only-one-step rule here means that it doesn't consider both improving the tile and changing city worker placement) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21437 (project freeciv): The scenario editor lets us be a bit scientific with this. Savegame attached where half the world is hills, the other half grass (so that there's something to eat), and half of the hills within the city radius have coal. After loading this, I build a city with the two settlers, set it to Coinage, research to Pottery, sentry the Explorer, and set the two workers to auto, and watch what they do. On S2_4, the workers seem to ignore the presence of coal but not avoid it. On trunk, the workers mined all the hills without coal before starting on hills with coal. This could have been coincidence. (file #19666) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: coaltest24.sav.bz2 Size:6 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21437 (project freeciv): you may want to correlate which tiles city is currently working to ones autosettler starts to improve Missed this in previous tests, but I just redid trunk, and city was only ever working a grass tile; worker built road to it and then they moved on to other things. City never worked hills so that shouldn't have influenced workers' choice. I don't think it's that worker is preferring the tile they're on, either -- I've seen workers walk over coal to get to a worksite without it. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21437 (project freeciv): btw. This is the first bug report ever where one should specify AI type used. :-) But I just assume you're using classic AI, and not threaded one, which does this part a bit differently. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21437 (project freeciv): btw. This is the first bug report ever where one should specify AI type used. :-) :) FWIW, I do actually have threaded AI built in (--enable-ai-static=classic,threaded), just because. But when I start a game with aifill (unlike this one), /list players says classic, so I assume it defaults to that. (How is it determined which AI is used for autosettlers? It doesn't show up in /list players. But if I /aitoggle, then it says classic.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Ruleset object deprecation (was: [bug #21428] Number of extras defined by the ruleset (= 8) are lower than the number in the savefile (= 10))
On 4 January 2014 16:15, Jacob Nevins
0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Marko Lindqvist writes:
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21428 (project freeciv):
[...] I've started designing Ruleset object deprecation -feature,
maybe making its debut in 3.0.
I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, so I'd be interested in
your ideas.
For instance, if advances in rulesets ever allowed us to merge the
Aqueduct buildings in civ2civ3 into a smaller set, we'd have a problem
with savegames.
(That's Aqueduct, Aqueduct, near river, and Aqueduct, near lake.)
In principle, as long as ruleset author wants to maintain
compatibility with savegames from version that had some now removed
object, such as Aqueduct buildings, he needs to have something like:
[deprecations]
buildings = { type, action, value
Aqueduct, near lake, Discard
Aqueduct, near river, Convert, Aqueduct
}
I was thinking of a simple supersedes list of rule_names for each
building (etc) that would cause old names in savegames to be converted
to new things; but I haven't thought about it very hard.
- ML
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21437] Autosettlers ignoring special resources (mining hills without coal when coal is available)
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21437 (project freeciv): How is it determined which AI is used for autosettlers? It doesn't show up in /list players. - new ticket? Maybe /list players should show AI type associated to human players too, as it affects advisors. AI type associated with player cannot be changed after player has been created, so rest assured that mere /aitoggle (or /away) retains it. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21437 ___ 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 #4406] players_in_same_range() and other refactoring
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4406 Summary: players_in_same_range() and other refactoring Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 19:13:44 2014 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: In Progress Privacy: Public Assigned to: jtn Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Some refactoring in requirements.c on the way to patch #4388. * Invent new players_in_same_range() for use in the various functions that look for player with some property within a requirement range. Not saving much yet, but it will when REQ_RANGE_TEAM is added. * Rework buildings_in_range() 'survives' to use a switch statement. * Factor out is_achievement_in_range() Untested so far. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4406 ___ 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 #4388] Requirement range Team
Update of patch #4388 (project freeciv): Depends on: = patch #4406 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4388 ___ 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 #4388] Requirement range Team
Update of patch #4388 (project freeciv): Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = jtn Planned Release: = 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4388 ___ 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 #4406] players_in_same_range() and other refactoring
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4406 (project freeciv): Invent new players_in_same_range() for use in the various functions that look for player with some property within a requirement range. Sorry for leaving that out when implementing Alliance range. I considered it, but then listened inner don't overdesign voice. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4406 ___ 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 #4407] Move requirement range/survives sanity checking from req_from_str() to rssanity.c
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4407 Summary: Move requirement range/survives sanity checking from req_from_str() to rssanity.c Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 19:24:19 2014 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Currently, req_from_str() does some sanity checking of requirements when parsing them: it checks validity of ranges for requirements, and (after patch #4396) the 'survives' field. cazfi notes in bug #21418 comment 1: On a general note, we need to be moving all possible sanity checks to sanity_check_ruleset_data() which freeciv-ruledit then can use to check ruleset being modified. req_from_str() should be reduced to checking the syntax of individual fields, and semantic checking of ranges vs types etc moved to rssanity.c (probably building on bug #21418). (I think this will lose us reporting of which filename/section is at fault, but it can't be helped.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4407 ___ 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 #4406] players_in_same_range() and other refactoring
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4406 (project freeciv): No problem :) (I also considered a players_range_iterate() like city_range_iterate() in the AI, but decided that was overdoing it.) (file #19667) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: trunk-requirements-range-refactor.patch Size:8 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4406 ___ 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 #4388] Requirement range Team
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4388 (project freeciv): Very early WIP. Not a commit candidate because: * Untested * Not written help yet because patch #4400 still WIP * Not updated README.effects because patch #4401 still WIP One notable decision: wrt bug #21415, I have decided to have the AI consider team-ranged effects, because it will always be on teammates' side so does not need to worry about benefiting them (its evaluation will still be entirely selfish, though, I think). (file #19668) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: trunk-req-range-team-wip1.patch Size:15 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4388 ___ 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 #21403] Pillaging EF_ALWAYS_ON_CITY_CENTER extras from city centers
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21403 (project freeciv): Should it even be possible for units to remove AutoOnCityCenter extras? 1) Maybe it's semantics, but unlike with the ALWAYS -flag this should not be hard rule. 2) It's actually right thing to do in some situations. It's *not* guaranteed that the extra will pop up back, for example if city has new owner who does not know required tech to rebuild it (destroying railroads before losing city) or, in case of some potential uses of extras by ruleset author, is not to be penalised by bad extra. OTOH the case where it does pop back up should work in a more reliable way than next time new tech is discovered - new ticket Maybe we need to give ruleset author control over this, as it would be nice to protect user from pillaging always pops back up -extras. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21403 ___ 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 #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably
Follow-up Comment #13, bug #21115 (project freeciv): S2_4: nreqs must be used, patch ruleset sanity checking to disallow negated = TRUE reqs Oh, if we are still going to release 2.3.5, sanity check patch planned for S2_4 should go to S2_3 too. Hm, I'm not wild about potentially disallowing rulesets on stable branches. An ultra-stable 2.3 update is not much use if the ruleset you were previously happy with (didn't tickle any bugs) now doesn't load at all. I'd go for emitting log_error() on these branches, at most -- that allows us to communicate that it's not recommended, and shows up fairly obviously in the client. (Similar to what we do when savegame loading goes a bit wonky.) On 2.5 and 2.6 we still have time to set a hard policy IMO... What about S2_5? Is it transition version where both are supposed to work? That really depends on whether we can make present=FALSE reliable in time. Right now I don't think we've scoped out how much work there is to get there from here -- all the stuff I've fixed, I happened to spot on the way somewhere else, I haven't done an exhaustive survey. (I suppose autogames with rulesets defined each way would be one way to get a clue...) maybe it's simply too late in stabilization to make present = FALSE the default now?) There's a weak argument which says that since the syntax on 2.5 and 2.6 will be different (negated=TRUE vs present=FALSE), we should only start encouraging this style once the syntax has settled (i.e. in 2.6) to avoid two lots of ruleset rewriting for third parties. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21115 ___ 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 #4408] Check for AutoOnCityCenter extras in more circumstances (not just gaining tech)
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4408 Summary: Check for AutoOnCityCenter extras in more circumstances (not just gaining tech) Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 19:59:34 2014 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: Currently we only call upgrade_all_city_extras() when a player discovers a new tech, and only for that player's cities, even though technically any requirement could trigger a transition. In other tickets, discussion has highlighted that we might want to do so in other places: * In patch #4405, I suggested that buildings (wonders) could trigger free city extras. (Should this only check the current player, or all players?) * In bug #21403, I wondered if city tile terrain change should trigger a check, in case it causes a requirement for an AutoOnCityCenter extra to be fulfilled. However, need to figure out the semantics of AutoOnCityCenter; see discussion in bug #21403. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4408 ___ 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 #4408] Check for AutoOnCityCenter extras in more circumstances (not just gaining tech)
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4408 (project freeciv): ...maybe Government too? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4408 ___ 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 #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably
Follow-up Comment #14, bug #21115 (project freeciv): Hm, I'm not wild about potentially disallowing rulesets on stable branches. True, that would be quite blatantly against datafile format freeze. log_error() (limited to one client popup even if there's multiple negated reqs) sounds sensible - in most cases it just makes ruleset author to fix the ruleset (should be clearly instructed in the message) (I suppose autogames with rulesets defined each way would be one way to get a clue...) Just to make sure we don't do duplicate work: have you done any work to convert our rulesets? If not, I'll create patch for that (not to be committed yet, obviously, but to be used in testing). There's a weak argument which says that since the syntax on 2.5 and 2.6 will be different (negated=TRUE vs present=FALSE) It's quite perfect counter-argument to the main argument for using negated = TRUE as default; that it will save ruleset authors from updating requirements when 2.6 comes out. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21115 ___ 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 #21403] Pillaging EF_ALWAYS_ON_CITY_CENTER extras from city centers
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21403 (project freeciv): It's not guaranteed that the extra will pop up back, for example if city has new owner who does not know required tech to rebuild it Good point -- in my world, the can-we-pillage test would have to include would this extra currently be automatically added to a city center. However: (destroying railroads before losing city) ...that doesn't allow for this scorched-earth strategy. Hm. or, in case of some potential uses of extras by ruleset author, is not to be penalised by bad extra It does allow this, though (you liberate a city with a Rat Citadel due to the previous owner's Government, Slob, Player administration, and have to clean it up). OTOH the case where it does pop back up should work in a more reliable way than next time new tech is discovered - new ticket I've raised patch #4408 for my previous suggestions, maybe it covers this too. (As usual with requirements, it's not practical to test *all* transitions, so we have to pick the most useful ones.) Maybe we need to give ruleset author control over this, as it would be nice to protect user from pillaging always pops back up -extras. I'm not sure what semantics it would have, since requirements specification is driven by current state and not transitions. I suspect that the only practical way to allow the scorched-earth thing in a way we developers won't break in future is to add the extras via Lua script rather than AutoOnCityCenter -- that way the ruleset author can arrange that they appear only when a player discovers the *relevant* tech (and only the first time, in the presence of tech loss). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21403 ___ 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 #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4405 (project freeciv): another plausible place we should be calling upgrade_all_city_extras() is on building wonders Now covered by patch #4408. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 ___ 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 #21438] freeciv-manual -r rulesetdir option doesn't work
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21438 Summary: freeciv-manual -r rulesetdir option doesn't work Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 20:19:33 2014 Category: None Severity: 2 - Minor Priority: 3 - Low Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: None Planned Release: ___ Details: Always selects the default/classic ruleset, on any branch back to S2_3. Maybe I broke it in bug #21086 or something. You'd have thought I'd have tested that. Sigh. I'm in no hurry to investigate. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21438 ___ 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 #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably
Follow-up Comment #15, bug #21115 (project freeciv): Just to make sure we don't do duplicate work: have you done any work to convert our rulesets? No. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21115 ___ 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 #21439] diplomat can't bribe trireme
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21439 Summary: diplomat can't bribe trireme Project: Freeciv Submitted by: None Submitted on: sab 04 gen 2014 21:06:45 UTC Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: 2.4.1 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Microsoft Windows Planned Release: ___ Details: I'm Etruscan, enemy is Japan. There is a diplomat in Velch (63, 44). You can send diplomat (63, 44) to Curtun (66, 43). You can send trireme (65, 42) to Curtun (66, 43). You can load diplomat on trireme in Curtrun (66, 43) and keep 1 diplomat movement point. You can move loaded trireme from Curtrun (66, 43) to (67, 42). There is one enemy trireme in (68, 41), I can't bribe it from (67, 42). I'm in Democracy, Japan is in Monarchy. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: sab 04 gen 2014 21:06:45 UTC Name: freeciv-T0140-Y00800-auto.sav.bz2 Size: 37kB By: None http://gna.org/bugs/download.php?file_id=19669 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21439 ___ Messaggio inviato con/da Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21440] Unique achievements aren't unique in the event of a tie?
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21440 Summary: Unique achievements aren't unique in the event of a tie? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 21:11:46 2014 Category: None 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: 2.6.0 ___ Details: I haven't tested this at all, so sorry if it's wrong, but just from reading the code: achievement_plr() builds a list of players who've reached an achievement this turn, and then select one of them randomly to be the winner if there's more than one. However, it sets bits in (struct achievement).achievers for everyone who qualified for the achievement, and these persist. The messages and script signals are correctly sent to only one person, but I think requirements/effects will be satisfied by anyone who qualified. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21440 ___ 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 #21439] diplomat can't bribe trireme
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21439 (project freeciv): I'll check the savegame later, but one should remember that even cargo of the transport counts against the unit to be bribed must be alone in the tile -rule, so the trireme may carry someone protecting it from bribing. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21439 ___ 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 #21441] Gained achievements not visible to client
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21441 Summary: Gained achievements not visible to client Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 21:15:00 2014 Category: None 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: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Currently, the client doesn't know when an achievement has been gained (although it knows the achievements exist). I spotted this when I made an effect depend on an achievement -- it was Output_Bonus, but because the client doesn't know it's happened, it doesn't include it in its breakdown of why the city production is what it is. We could add a network packet for it. This would also allow clients to display a trophy case, in theory. This raises the question: are achievements public knowledge? Currently a message is only sent to a qualifying player. However, world and alliance range is supported for achievement requirements; for the client to report accurately on these, it needs to know other players' achievements. I'm not sure what the design criteria for achievements are, so I don't know how to answer this. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21441 ___ 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 #21442] Client could report incomplete effect knowledge in city dialog
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21442 Summary: Client could report incomplete effect knowledge in city dialog Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 21:19:46 2014 Category: client Severity: 2 - Minor Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: None Planned Release: ___ Details: Following on from bug #21441, where a client doesn't have the same knowledge as the server about how an effect is calculated: The city dialog pop-up looks like Prod: 5 ( +4) +3 : Citizens -1 : Used : Adds up to 4 : Total surplus The numbers blatantly don't add up, and the client has enough information to spot this. It could instead display something like: +3 : Citizens -1 : Used +2 : (unknown) : Adds up to 4 : Total surplus which would at least be more honest. Obviously we hope this never happens, but it's easy to guard against. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21442 ___ 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 #4409] Script-defined achievements
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4409 Summary: Script-defined achievements Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jan 4 21:33:10 2014 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: Another one from the half-bakery. The new achievements we have on trunk come from a small set hardcoded in the server (Map_Known, Spaceship, Multicultural). However, it strikes me that you really want to be able to define ruleset-specific conditions that we (developers) wouldn't have thought of, which looks like a fine application for Lua scripting. How would this work? * Could use achievement type of None or Script which is never true in the core achievements code. * To signal achievement, should script call into server, or vice versa (or both)? ** If scripted achievements are to follow the existing tie-break resolution arrangements, that suggests server sends a signal to script saying has this player achieved this achievement in the achievement checking phase. (Script probably shouldn't change game state here.) * How to handle achievement messages? Currently they're hardcoded in the server. ** Even without scripting, there's an argument these should be ruleset-defined; for example, if the alien ruleset had achievements, it would say You're the first one to launch spaceship towards Alpha Centauri! which seems unlikely to be the obvious destination starting at Deneb. The existing messages use format strings but this would be unnecessary, as they only have values substituted that are also ruleset-defined. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4409 ___ 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 #4406] players_in_same_range() and other refactoring
Update of patch #4406 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress = Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #3: After a bit of testing, I'm considering this ready to commit. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4406 ___ 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 #3, patch #4011 (project freeciv): I checked another time... I added scripting lua (transform terrain -mountain- and place resource -gold-) in the scenario. If I turn ocean, deep ocean or lake in mountains, there are error messages. Same position, exactly on sanity_check(). If I turn plain in mountain, nothing... I don't know if swamp, glacier, forest, hill or other terrains are ok, but I think so. (file #19670) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: europe-200x100-v2.sav Size:60 KB ___ 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 #17301] Experimental ruleset enables 'foggedborders' without borders=SEE_INSIDE
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #17301 (project freeciv): This is still bothering me. I'd like more rulesets to used foggedborders by default, but I feel I can't recommend it due to the issue described here. As an alternative to SEE_INSIDE, what would people think of a server option where you always know where your _own_ borders are, but other players' are fogged? (And shared vision shares knowledge of borders.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?17301 ___ 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 #21384] Client segfault in fill_grid_sprite_array on server shutdown or player /remove
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #21384 (project freeciv): Postscript: cazfi actually spotted this problem nearly two years ago. From bug #18588 comment 1: I suspect that there's similar problem when tile owner is removed from game. Remaining players may still have him as owner of the tile in their player map. Fixing this needs more investigation. Setting tile owner to NULL is part of player map removal, and it might be bad idea to simply call tile knowledge update for all players when one player map is in such a state. I don't *think* my solution trips over the issue described... ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21384 ___ 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 #21440] Unique achievements aren't unique in the event of a tie?
Update of bug #21440 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = cazfi ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21440 ___ 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 #21436] Connect with rail can no longer build roads first
Update of bug #21436 (project freeciv): Category:None = client Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = cazfi ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21436 ___ 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 #21427] Nationset rule_name mandatory
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21427 (project freeciv): How about this patch? Approved. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21427 ___ 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 #4409] Script-defined achievements
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4409 (project freeciv): I've had the idea about requirement type Lua for years, where lua script would be consulted if requirement is fullfilled or not. It would be available for more things (all requirement ranges, for starters) than having such req only via Achievement, Lua_nn, Player, and taking a bit more scripting code everything that could be done with Lua achievement, should be doable with existing interfaces + that Lua req. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4409 ___ 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 #4380] No on-the-limit bonus for negative Size_Adj
Update of patch #4380 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4380 ___ 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 #4381] Save action enablers, disasters, and achievements from freeciv-ruledit
Update of patch #4381 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4381 ___ 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 #21443] Empty global_init_techs not saved
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21443 Summary: Empty global_init_techs not saved Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Sun 05 Jan 2014 04:25:36 AM EET Category: freeciv-ruledit 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: 2.6.0 ___ Details: Freeciv-ruledit does not create empty options.global_init_techs entry to game.ruleset if there's no such techs. Ruleset loading considers that entry mandatory. Forcing write of empty string vector to secfile would require changes to lower level functionality (I haven't checked how hard that would be to implement), so I'm more inclined to simply make the entry non-mandatory. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21443 ___ 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 #4385] Do not send our own style bits to SDL_ttf
Update of patch #4385 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4385 ___ 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 #21414] Huts in S2_5 savegame loaded into trunk as pollution
Update of bug #21414 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21414 ___ 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 #21439] diplomat can't bribe trireme
Update of bug #21439 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Status:None = Invalid Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #2: Oh, you're trying to bribe directly from the trireme. Diplomatic attack is not possible from transport (from non-native terrain tile, to be exact). And it correctly says so. I get this in output (chat) area: Unit cannot perform diplomatic action from Ocean. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21439 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Ruleset object deprecation (was: [bug #21428] Number of extras defined by the ruleset (= 8) are lower than the number in the savefile (= 10))
On 4 January 2014 20:12, Marko Lindqvist cazf...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 January 2014 16:15, Jacob Nevins
0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Marko Lindqvist writes:
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21428 (project freeciv):
[...] I've started designing Ruleset object deprecation -feature,
maybe making its debut in 3.0.
I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, so I'd be interested in
your ideas.
For instance, if advances in rulesets ever allowed us to merge the
Aqueduct buildings in civ2civ3 into a smaller set, we'd have a problem
with savegames.
(That's Aqueduct, Aqueduct, near river, and Aqueduct, near lake.)
In principle, as long as ruleset author wants to maintain
compatibility with savegames from version that had some now removed
object, such as Aqueduct buildings, he needs to have something like:
[deprecations]
buildings = { type, action, value
Aqueduct, near lake, Discard
Aqueduct, near river, Convert, Aqueduct
}
..and if you want to split old Aqueduct to civ2civ3 style Aqueduct
implementation:
[deprecations]
buildings = { type, action, value
Aqueduct, Convert, Aqueduct ; Highest priority, keep any
Aqueduct fullfilling updated reqs as Aqueduct
Aqueduct, Convert, Aqueduct, near river
Aqueduct, Convert, Aqueduct, near lake
Aqueduct, ForceConvert, Aqueduct ; Ruleset author wonders if he
should have Aqueduct, Discard here instead
}
- ML
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4408] Check for AutoOnCityCenter extras in more circumstances (not just gaining tech)
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4408 (project freeciv): As with city range requirements, I would go to check once a turn model with this. 1) Any kind of requirement gets checked, and at well-defined point (unlike enabler itself not being checked, but getting noticed next time something completely unrelated happens to tricker the check) 2) Never multiple heavy nested iterations (all cities * all road types * all reqs) in turn change when multiple things change at once (gaining tech, multiple wonders getting finished, global warming caused terrain changes everywhere...) Requirements that can change mid-turn are rare, and we probably wouldn't be testing any of those anyway? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4408 ___ 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 #4405] Move automatic road/base messages (New hope sweeps like fire...) to Lua script?
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4405 (project freeciv): I had not noticed that we'd got rid of free city bridges in the classic ruleset by not having AlwaysOnCityCenter, although now I see it was discussed extensively in patch #3522 and patch #3826. We should remember to put that in NEWS. Story actually begins from patch #3007, later patches just ported that behavior to new formats (and stripped it from most ruleset when it became possible to control via ruleset) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4405 ___ 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 #21436] Connect with rail can no longer build roads first
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21436 (project freeciv): might be hard to solve in general Note, however, that updates to user interface have been minimal - full potential of gen-roads and extras is not exposed to users. There's no such thing as connect gen-road as there's only connect with ROCO_ROAD and connect with ROCO_RAIL. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21436 ___ 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 #21440] Unique achievements aren't unique in the event of a tie?
Update of bug #21440 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress = Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #1: So far untested fix. (file #19673) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: UniqueCredit.patch Size:0 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21440 ___ 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 #21438] freeciv-manual -r rulesetdir option doesn't work
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21438 (project freeciv): Printing curently selected rulesetdir (game.server.rulesetdir) in various places shows that it changes from user requested one to classic in game_init() ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21438 ___ 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 #21438] freeciv-manual -r rulesetdir option doesn't work
Update of bug #21438 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Status:None = Ready For Test Planned Release: = 2.3.5, 2.4.2, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #2: Fix (file #19674, file #19675, file #19676) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: ManualRequestedRuleset.patch Size:1 KB File name: ManualRequestedRuleset-S2_4.patch Size:1 KB File name: ManualRequestedRuleset-S2_3.patch Size:1 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21438 ___ 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 #4402] Fix typo that allowed custom formats only up to sizeof(char*)
Update of patch #4402 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to:None = cazfi Planned Release: = 2.3.5, 2.4.2, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4402 ___ 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 #4389] Ruleset-defined maximum city map radius (for UI, etc)
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4389 (project freeciv): My vote would go to simply scanning ruleset loading time if there's any city radius affecting effects in the ruleset. If there is, keep current behavior (or calculate upper bound that all such effects together could have, no matter if they can really exist at the same time). If there is no such effects, base all the scaling to constant city radius. I know I've mentioned this proposal several times over the years, but never got around to implementing it... ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4389 ___ 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 #17301] Experimental ruleset enables 'foggedborders' without borders=SEE_INSIDE
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #17301 (project freeciv): As an alternative to SEE_INSIDE, what would people think of a server option where you always know where your own borders are, but other players' are fogged? That sounds like an improvement to current situation (unlike the SEE_INSIDE solution, that just trades one problem to another) (And shared vision shares knowledge of borders.) You mean also those tiles that are not actually seen by the shared vision giver, but for which borders are known regardless? Why? I don't think there's even implementation cleanliness argument for this. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?17301 ___ 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 #21410] Gen-road unit orders not loaded correctly from savefile?
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21410 (project freeciv): I couldn't conveniently set up a good test case What about Railroad? There's connect with railroad (ROCO_RAIL) way to get railroad building in to saved orders. If it's then considered OLD_ROAD, and not OLD_RAIL, at the time of converting from old savegame, that should result in building just Road. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21410 ___ 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 #21382] Apparent off-by-one in road and base editor tools
Update of bug #21382 (project freeciv): Category: client-gtk-2.0 = client Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to:None = cazfi ___ Follow-up Comment #1: It's base/road id's being one off in client side. Fix attached (file #19677) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: BaseRoadEditOffByOne.patch Size:0 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21382 ___ 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 #4411] Convert supplied ruleset effects to use present = FALSE instead of nreqs
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4411 Summary: Convert supplied ruleset effects to use present = FALSE instead of nreqs Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Sun 05 Jan 2014 08:40:54 AM EET Category: rulesets Priority: 5 - Normal Status: In Progress Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 2.6.0 ___ Details: At the moment for testing purposes only. Attached version of the patch converts classic ruleset only. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Sun 05 Jan 2014 08:40:54 AM EET Name: PresentFalseClassic.patch.bz2 Size: 2kB By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=19678 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4411 ___ 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 #20030] Amplio2 missing civ2civ3 wonder gfx
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #20030 (project freeciv): Unfortunately licensing issues prevent us from taking Temple of Artemis or Mausoleum of Mausolos. Attached patch is for Temple of Zeus. In addition to applying this, one should copy the image as data/wonders/statue_of_zeus.png. Inspection period for this part starts now. (file #19679, file #19680) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: StatueOfZeus.patch Size:1 KB File name: StatueOfZeus-S2_5.patchSize:1 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?20030 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
