[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Status: Postponed = Duplicate Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #14: Ok to close this ticket? Nobody disagreed. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Category:None = general ___ Follow-up Comment #13: This has been rewritten in S2_6, though not the way described in this ticket. Ok to close this ticket? Even if further redefinement is to be made, it's cleaner to start discussion in a new ticket based on current implementation, than to continue on a ticket based on old implementation. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Assigned to: jtn = None Depends on: = patch #3630 ___ Follow-up Comment #12: I haven't been paying attention. What's the current state of developments in this area? I see on trunk we have a separate extras_owner field in data structures and on network (added in patch #3630, some use made of it in patch #3870). However, I guess it's still a work in progress, as I think the client ignores PACKET_TILE_INFO.extras_owner, and calls tile_set_owner() which sets both fields in the client data structure from PACKET_TILE_INFO.owner. So in effect I think it's a server-only notion at the moment. Are there pending tickets I've missed? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress = Postponed ___ Follow-up Comment #11: I don't think I have anything worth looking at. If I ever pick this up again, I expect I'll be starting from scratch (albeit with the same basic design). Go ahead. (For the record: I have a git stash off r17934, 2010-09-04, and I think the state is as I said in comment #4: I've got a mess of code changes but nothing that compiles yet, and I've been getting a bit bogged down in the border code. The changes I have look to be mostly dull ruleset/network plumbing rather than the core logic. Hopefully some of the changes to border code in the past 18 months will mean I get less bogged down...) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #16385 (project freeciv): I'm about to work on related code. Have you any code to share so I would not break what you've done so far / reinvent the wheel. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #16385 (project freeciv): See also bug #18179 for another reason why reworking this is a good idea. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #16385 (project freeciv): see also bug #14236 bases claiming territory ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Depends on: = patch #1970 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #16385 (project freeciv): I follow you in your brilliant analysis. However, I am not sure of what do you propose as rules changes. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #16385 (project freeciv): Related question: An empty bases (not protected by units) could be captured by enemy units? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16385 (project freeciv): another related question: should bases claim ownership of neighbouring tiles without a unit present? (see bug #14236) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #16385 (project freeciv): Here's where I've got to: First, after some work, I've more or less changed my mind about having a single owner field + borders flag in the tile; see below for reasoning. I'm now thinking about separate per-tile tile owner and base owner fields (both pointing to players). Add new base flags ownable and capturable. Make the existing border_sq, vision_main_sq, and vision_invis_sq properties require ownable to be set. An ownable base is one that (usually) has an owner. * The initial owner is that of the unit who created it. * Once created, by default, an ownable base doesn't change owner. (Such a base can end up un-owned if a player is killed/removed, but this is rare. It could also happen with scenario/editor.) * An ownable base doesn't necessarily act as a border source (only if border_sq is set). A capturable base is an ownable base that changes hands when occupied by a unit at war with the current owner. * Can't have a mixture of capturable and ownable-but-not-capturable bases on the same tile, so that's an automatic conflicts when loading rulesets. [Edited: I hadn't seen bug #14236. While we're in there, it probably wouldn't be hard to add another option that controls whether a base remains owned when it contains no units. Would need to think a bit about details e.g. allied stacks.] A fortress would thus be ownable, capturable, and have border_sq set -- this should result in no change from current behaviour. A buoy would be ownable but not capturable, and have the vision fields set, by default. Consequences: * It doesn't claim any borders (not even the tile it's on). This fixes most of the problems originally raised. * It can't be captured. The only way to stop the owner seeing with it is to pillage it (which is cheap and easy, if the owner isn't defending it). * In particular, my buoy can be inside someone else's borders and still provide vision to me. The last point is more or less why I changed my mind about having a single owner; when documenting ownable it seemed unnecessarily dirty to say this can't change owners (unless you build a city nearby). I don't think having two owners changes the design much, in fact. (Obviously border claiming bases must have the two owner fields the same...) It also makes the necessary changes to the editor much cleaner, I think. Something I've had in the back of my mind while designing this is a sort of capture-the-flag scenario -- this would use ownable capturable flag bases which have no particular effect (no border source, etc). One thing I haven't quite worked out is whether capture-by-unit and capture-by-borders should both be controlled by the capturable flag, or whether they need separate options. (I'm assuming the former, for now.) As far as client UI is concerned, I was thinking of an ownable base displaying a flag like a city does (when citybar is disabled), but having this be overridden by shields if there's a unit on the tile. This has the advantage of not requiring new graphics :) I've got a mess of code changes but nothing that compiles yet, and I've been getting a bit bogged down in the border code. I'll probably wait for bug #16613 and patch #1864 to land before taking this up again. Assuming everyone's happy, I'd like to get it in 2.3.0, which is why I'm working on it now (since it changes packet formats etc), but it probably shouldn't be a blocker. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #16385 (project freeciv): That's sound very great to me. For bug #16613, I will make new tests using autogames on custom rulesets (because I didn't have test bases enough), but it should be ready in about 1 week. For patch #1864, it's not ready, there are probably big problems because of the borders removals when creating and removing a base. I can wait you do your change, it would help for that. Also you could handle it if you wish. By the way, about the code, an important function for removing a base properly is missing in my opinion. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #16385 (project freeciv): By the way, about the code, an important function for removing a base properly is missing in my opinion. I already have a separate patch 95% complete for factoring that out. I should finish it. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
Update of bug #16385 (project freeciv): Status: Need Info = In Progress ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ 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 #16385] Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 Summary: Consider changing how base ownership works to avoid problems with buoys Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sunday 08/08/10 at 13:22 Category: None Severity: 1 - Wish Priority: 1 - Later Status: Need Info Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: None Planned Release: ___ Details: Something I've been thinking for a while, but been reminded about by a discussion on the forum http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?p=25935#25935: Buoys provide vision to a specific nation, so it's necessary to somehow track who they belong to. This is currently implemented by re-using the border/ownership mechanism: the tile with the buoy on becomes part of the nation's territory (likely an isolated tile). This implementation causes various gameplay issues: * Nations at peace with the buoy owner can't move into the buoy square. This allows obstructive nations to block off arbitrary parts of the ocean or straits with lines of buoys (which are cheap to build). * Buoys act as sea bases for the purpose of reducing unhappiness in representative governments; buoys can be built at will anywhere in the world, and sea units and transported land units can use that tile as a base from which to carry out an aggressive campaign without the usual penalties. * Unless playing with foggedborders, all players can deduce the location of a nation's buoys as soon as they are built. I assume these are all unintended consequences. IMO it would be better if there were a separate way to track ownership for bases without creating borders. I don't think this new ownership concept needs to be per-base -- it's OK for all bases on a tile to have to belong to the same nation, and change ownership en masse -- so this probably means a change to the per-tile structure (which probably rules out changing this in S2_2). I also don't think it makes sense for a base to be inside one nation's borders but belong to another, so continuing with a single owner field should suffice; an additional per-tile flag borders stating whether owner claims borders or is merely deriving benefits from any bases will suffice, I think. I haven't thought this through exhaustively, but some implementation thoughts: * The definition of borders will be changed to treat tiles with a zero borders flag as unclaimed territory, regardless of who owner is (currently this is signalled by a null owner); * When borders recede (e.g., city destroyed), the owner field is *not* cleared. ** So a buoy near a city that is destroyed continues to give benefits to that city's erstwhile owner. ** This leaves some dead but client-visible information in tiles without bases (effectively, the last claimant of that tile). If that's undesirable, the borders code could instead carefully clear owners except on tiles with all relevant bases, with the same effect. * Pillaging an owned base on unclaimed territory will not automatically be an act of war against the owner as far as diplomatic states are concerned; it's undefended and in international waters, thus fair game. (But of course, in the case of a buoy, they probably saw you coming, and are free to take exception to that.) ** Slightly unsure about this, but I think something of the sort is necessary for balance. Perhaps it could at least be a diplomatic incident (excuse for war) like certain Diplomat/Spy actions. * The client UI would need to distinguish base and tile ownership in the tile middle-click popup. Comments? Objections? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16385 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
