[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19815] ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space.
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 Summary: ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space. Project: Freeciv Submitted by: henkutsu_tama Submitted on: Sat 16 Jun 2012 06:13:12 AM GMT Category: ai Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: 2.3.2 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: GNU/Linux Planned Release: ___ Details: I have been experimenting with rulesets with the intent of making an alternate, ai friendly ruleset and included the 'boats' unit from ancient era. When starting a game map made of small islands it became obvious that the ai wasn't expanding, even though they had 20+ city builder units. At first I thought it was the speed of the boats that was the issue, because when I gave the ai some unmodified triremes they utilized them. However, increasing the speed of the 'boats' unit did not fix the problem. It wasn't until I increased the transport capacity to 2 that the ai began to use the boats for transportation. How to test: Put an ai on a small island (room for one city) and give them many settlers and (adjacent to the settlers), any type of transport modified to have only one capacity. The ai will not use it. Repeat again with the same save but with the transport able to carry 2 units. The ai will use it. NOTE: I have only tested this with settlers. I do not know if it effects other units. I have tested this with the default ruleset, only changing the capacity of the trireme. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 ___ 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 #19815] ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space.
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19815 (project freeciv): Second slot is meant for settler's bodyguard. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 ___ 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 #19740] City trading between allies when city trading is disabled
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19740 (project freeciv): AFAIK cities already have all the information that this change will required. (For example partisans know the original owner.) There's information about original owner of the city, but that would not be enough in case city has had multiple owners. You probably want to return city to *latest* owner from the alliance. It's also possible that original owner is already dead or is neutral party in the ongoing war. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19740 ___ 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 #19815] ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space.
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #19815 (project freeciv): Presumably the AI could learn to use two boats and keep them together, though, in order to transport the settler and bodyguard together. (He says, knowing next to nothing about the AI internals.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 ___ 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] Any way to check for a terrain resource within the limits of a city?
I am writing a new ruleset and wanted to add, for example, a city improvement called gold mine which can only be built if Hills (Gold) or Mountains (Gold) is within the city limits. Is this possible? ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3322] Resource requirements
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3322 Summary: Resource requirements Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jun 16 12:53:46 2012 Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: Effects can specify requirements of terrain, specials, bases, and roads, but not resources (wheat, gold, etc). This seems like an oversight that would be easy to fix. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3322 ___ 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 #3322] Resource requirements
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3322 (project freeciv): Thanks. It would really expand the possibilities of what can be done. One of the reasons I wanted to do this was so that I could lower the output of some specials unless an appropriate facility is built in the city (which may have a tech requirement). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3322 ___ 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 #19815] ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space.
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #19815 (project freeciv): The problem is that the ai doesn't build bodyguards at the beginning. Not until it meets an enemy or reaches a certain size and stops spamming settlers. As a result, an ai on a small island with only small ships available will spam settlers until it starves/goes broke without spreading. Perhaps the bodyguard reservation should only come into effect once the settler spam period is ended? This way the ai will at least have some citys on other islands before it stops using transports. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 ___ 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 #19815] ai won't utilize transports for settling with only 1 space.
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #19815 (project freeciv): Actually, thinking about it, a better solution would be to simply document in the units.rulesets that for the ai to use a craft for settling, it should have a capacity of at least 2. That way there is no need to muck around with the ai. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19815 ___ 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 #3323] Allow requirement range within city workable radius for tile-based requirements?
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3323 Summary: Allow requirement range within city workable radius for tile-based requirements? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sat Jun 16 14:02:30 2012 Category: None Priority: 3 - Low Status: Need Info Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: It might be nice if tile-based prerequisites (terrain, specials, bases etc) could be required to be somewhere in a range of a city's workable radius, rather than just on or adjacent to the city centre. However, the implications aren't trivial, so this ticket may end up closed without a fix. An example given freeciv-dev http://mail.gna.org/public/freeciv-dev/2012-06/msg00052.html was a gold mine city improvement which could only be built in a city with gold nearby (would also need patch #3322). Answering the question is a tile with properties X in workable range of this city isn't trivially cheap (requires iterating over city map), but is it prohibitively expensive? I suspect it's manageable unless some AI is going to call it in some inner loop. Answering the inverse question which cities can work this tile is likely to be prohibitively expensive, so we'd better avoid that. (As it happens, in the current implementation, it would actually be much cheaper to answer the question which city _is_ working this tile. Perhaps worked by city would be a useful alternative range? ) It would seem reasonable to use the range City for this. In contexts where a non-NULL city is provided to is_req_active(), the Tile range already means the tile the city is on, and I can't think of another sensible meaning for City for tile-based requirements. (Except, perhaps, city is _working_ this kind of tile.) A quick survey of situations where the City range is meaningful (I may have missed some): * Improvement build requirements: straightforward at build time. ** In some cases (but not others), improvements are sold if the requirement goes away (e.g., harbours need nearby ocean). The current mechanism for that (city_landlocked_sell_coastal_improvements()) already isn't very general and wouldn't be easy to extend to city-radius requirements. *** However, moving to the alternative strategy suggested in comments, of checking every improvement's requirements once per turn, would work. *** But, examples of reqs whose disappearance don't cause buildings to be sold include tech and other buildings. We probably don't want to change that. So there's inconsistency here already. ** It would be pretty annoying to have a gold mine sold due to a temporary city radius fluctuation due to plague or whatever. But that's probably up to ruleset designers. *** If we used a tile-worked requirement, we certainly wouldn't want to sell as soon as a city stopped working a tile. * Specialist requirements: probably sensible. ** May need to re-assess specialists whenever city radius or nearby terrain changes, expensive... * Disaster: straightforward, because disasters don't persist. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3323 ___ 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] Any way to check for a terrain resource within the limits of a city?
animecent...@gmail.com writes: I am writing a new ruleset and wanted to add, for example, a city improvement called gold mine which can only be built if Hills (Gold) or Mountains (Gold) is within the city limits. Is this possible? Sadly, it appears not! Firstly, you can't require a resource. This seems like an oversight that would be simple to fix. You've already spotted that I've raised http://gna.org/patch/?3322. Secondly, I'm not totally sure what you mean by within the city limits. It's not currently possible to require a tile property within the city's workable radius. I've raised http://gna.org/patch/?3323 to discuss this, but it would be less trivial to implement. You could however easily require the gold to be on, adjacent to, or cardinally adjacent to the city centre tile (once #3322 is implemented) -- compare Hydro Plant / Hoover Dam and rivers. ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3321] Server option to change default AI type
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3321 (project freeciv): So far the (partly implemented) plan has been to make default AI configure option. At least when new ai type is part of freeciv tree, you are reconfiguring to build it anyway. Hm, true. That would probably suffice for AI developers. Is it likely to make it into 2.4.x? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3321 ___ 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 #3323] Allow requirement range within city workable radius for tile-based requirements?
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3323 (project freeciv): When CityTile requirement was added, only affects on city center were required so extensions to that were left to future. It currently supports only Center tiles, but idea was that also Worked, and Range could be later added (I've never had time to figure out sensible way to do it if there's one - I'm worried about computational costs of something that would get called a lot (ai evaluating buildings for example would result in one call for every tile for every building type every turn for every city)) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3323 ___ 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 #19816] SDL-client city overview has tiny city map
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?19816 Summary: SDL-client city overview has tiny city map Project: Freeciv Submitted by: None Submitted on: Sat Jun 16 17:00:48 2012 Category: client-sdl Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: 2.3.2 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Mac OS Planned Release: ___ Details: When opening the city overview in SDL-client, the city map size is scaled down so much that it covers only a small portion of the black rectangle reserved for it, and hence the resource allocation over the city tiles becomes illegible. Using freeciv release 2.3.2 from MacPorts on OSX 10.6. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19816 ___ 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 #19816] SDL-client city overview has tiny city map
Update of bug #19816 (project freeciv): Status:None = Duplicate Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #1: I'm afraid it's a known (if embarrassing) issue -- bug #15804. See also freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/NEWS-2.3.0#KNOWN_ISSUES ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19816 ___ 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 #15804] fix city map (variable city radii, sdl client)
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #15804 (project freeciv): Effect of this bug, for searches: The city dialog has not been redesigned to accommodate the larger city map required by variable city radius support. As a result, the city map display is scaled down and difficult to read. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15804 ___ 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 #3324] minor correction to canvas_put_text in gtk3 client
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3324 Summary: minor correction to canvas_put_text in gtk3 client Project: Freeciv Submitted by: None Submitted on: Sat 16 Jun 2012 05:10:12 PM UTC Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: galtge...@o2.pl Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: Having better grasp on gtk/cairo I've noticed, that certain operation was actually giving the wrong result - pango_cairo_show_layout, as opposed to gdk_draw_layout already takes font ascent in account. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Sat 16 Jun 2012 05:10:12 PM UTC Name: canvas_put_text_simplify.patch Size: 952B By: None patch implementing mentioned change http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=15818 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3324 ___ 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 #18006] handle_city() CMA: Larvotto has changed multiple times.
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #18006 (project freeciv): For what it's worth, I'm seeing this bug in 2.3.2 stable, built from source on MacOS Lion. Problem is repeatable when the server is restarted with a save file. Save file available if it is useful. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?18006 ___ 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 #18006] handle_city() CMA: Larvotto has changed multiple times.
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #18006 (project freeciv): Please do attach your savefile, thanks. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?18006 ___ 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 #3323] Allow requirement range within city workable radius for tile-based requirements?
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3323 (project freeciv): First off, thanks for looking at this. I've been reading the codebase for two other tickets I am about to open (I am not a programmer so I understand maybe 1/3 of it. Yay comments!), so I can see how expensive this could be. With regards to fluctuations, how about if range where a number, like city radius? I imagine small numbers would have the same effect as CAdj then Adj. The ruleset maker could then decide what an acceptable distance from the city to the target could be. I did not know about the sell off. If a building requires a min size city and the city shrinks, is it sold? Sounds like an expensive routine to check each turn. Perhaps allow 'persists' or something similar so authors can choose to have no further checks on the building until it obsoletes? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3323 ___ 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 #3323] Allow requirement range within city workable radius for tile-based requirements?
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3323 (project freeciv): There's also difference in that CityTile requirement can only be used with effects targeting tiles, while new range proposed in original submission would be available (only) for effects targeting city. So maybe we should handle CityTile extensions in another (additional) ticket altogether, though it would be nice to discuss somewhere which one is more urgent in case we implement just one. To the mailing list was sent use-case that one should be able to increase output of a tile with certain resource when city has specific building. Let's ignore for a while that *tile* output bonus was requested, and consider also *city* output bonuses acceptable (the two have different limitations and possibilities. For example tile output is raw food/shield/trade, one cannot affect gold/science/luxury directly) After that I see the main differences to be whether number of suitable tiles should matter, and should one be able to have multiple requirements for the *same* tile. If we go by city (and not individual tiles) targeted effect, effect is applied just once no matter how many tiles there would be with required resource (as long as there's at least one). One cannot have multiple requirements for *same* tile if we go by city targeted effect. If you have requirement that some tile within city radius should have given resource and another requirement that some tile should have river in it, those two tiles either are or are not the same, but either fulfills your requirement list. In the future we may want to add requirement type to check if tile is within our borders, and want to combine that with resource check. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3323 ___ 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] unittypes capped at 64
NOTE: I am not a programmer.
Is there a reason why the number of custom unittype flags are limited to 4?
I don't want to raise a ticket if there is a good reason for it.
As far as I can see by searching the code, this is set in unittype.h by;
F_USER_FLAG_1, /* User defined flags start here */
F_LAST_USER_FLAG = F_USER_FLAG_1 + MAX_NUM_USER_UNIT_FLAGS - 1,
F_LAST
};
...
#define F_MAX 64
...
BV_DEFINE(bv_unit_type_flags, F_MAX);
and utilized in unittype.c with
static char *user_flag_names[MAX_NUM_USER_UNIT_FLAGS]
= { NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL };
These seem to be the only places where the limit is referred. If the number
cannot be increased (which would save a lot of repetition in some
rulesets), could the spaces for 'horse, fighter, aegis, pikeman, helicopter
and airunit' be freed for use with custom types? It seems all of their
bonuses can already be implemented via ruleset effects, and some rulesets
may not have those units, or those relations between units like that.
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19817] plrcolormode=PLR_SET and PLR_RANDOM issues
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?19817
Summary: plrcolormode=PLR_SET and PLR_RANDOM issues
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sat Jun 16 23:21:59 2012
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
Status: In Progress
Assigned to: jtn
Originator Email:
Open/Closed: Open
Release: S2_4
Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
Planned Release: 2.4.0,2.5.0
___
Details:
There are a few issues, some major, with these values for 'plrcolormode':
* PLR_SET does not assign random colours when no explicit colour has been
assigned, as advertised. Instead all unassigned colours end up black.
* PLR_RANDOM makes no attempt to avoid assigning the same colour to multiple
players, even if there are enough colours to make this possible.
* 'playercolor XXX reset' isn't allowed when it should be (PLR_SET mode), due
to an incorrect test.
The attached patch reworks this feature to fix these issues, and makes some
other changes:
* Colours are visible in pregame ('/list colors' etc) when they're
predictable.
* 'playercolor' warns if you're duplicating someone else's colour.
* It's no longer mandatory to use a hash character when specifying colours
(/playercolor Caesar '#ff'), although it's still accepted. You always
seemed to need to quote it, which was annoying and the error message you get
back is confusing if you're not thinking about comments.
* When changing away from PLR_SET mode, colours set with 'playercolor' are
cleared, to avoid trouble.
* The client view is updated immediately if 'playercolor' is changed on the
server, rather than at a random time.
* Strings polished.
(Also, the current arrangements can I think call fc_rand() during pregame in
direct response to server commands, which just makes me itch. As of this
patch, only the end result of colour-related commands in pregame --
specifically, which colours have been set with 'playercolor' -- affects the
random sequence, and not until after the map has been generated.)
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?19817
___
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 #3321] Server option to change default AI type
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3321 (project freeciv): Is it likely to make it into 2.4.x? I think ai module building system is currently in nice stable state in S2_4. I'm not going to develop it with S2_4 in mind, but if backporting turns out to be trivial once it has been finished for TRUNK... ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3321 ___ 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 #19817] plrcolormode=PLR_SET and PLR_RANDOM issues
Additional Item Attachment, bug #19817 (project freeciv): File name: trunk-S2_4-playercolor-revamp.diff Size:25 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19817 ___ 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 #19817] plrcolormode=PLR_SET and PLR_RANDOM issues
Update of bug #19817 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress = Ready For Test ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19817 ___ 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 #3325] Allow custom types for governments to be used in effect requirements.
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?3325
Summary: Allow custom types for governments to be used in
effect requirements.
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: henkutsu_tama
Submitted on: Sat 16 Jun 2012 10:36:38 PM GMT
Category: general
Priority: 5 - Normal
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Originator Email:
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Any
Planned Release:
___
Details:
I am fairly sure this would be a big project (I am not a programmer), needing
changes to;
fc_types.h
requirements.h
packets.def ?
governments.c
governments.h
effects.h
(perhaps adding govtypes.c/h as well?)
But it looks like most of the code can be copied from the infrastructure
needed for unit types, and there are good reasons for doing it:
After reading through all the rulesets I can get my hands on, (aliens,
ancients, Civ2-3, etc) and writing my own I have notice that there is a huge
amount of repetition when tying effects to governments, and that repetition
increases the chances of errors/difficulty of modifying and lowers
readability.
Some time ago it was proposed on the wiki to radically change how governments
work; ethos, scope etc. Not all of these fit together well so there would have
to be relation rules.. and it becomes a mess. HOWEVER! Setting anarchy to 1
turn and (using my ruleset as an example) having 15 different governments
across a [3 (size),3 (focus),2 (antiquity)] matrix with their own quirks works
just as well, and seems to be understandable by the ai without any changes.
(need to do more testing). The only problem is defining everything, and the
amount of req{} nreq{} gets ridiculous.
Being able to just write
; Voting governments have a senate that may prevent war
[effect_govtype_voting_senate]
type = Has Senate
value = 1
reqs=
{ type, name, range
GovType, Voting, Player
}
; Economically geared societies gain a trade bonus
[effect_govtype_voting_senate]
type= Output_Inc_Tile
value = 1
reqs=
{ type, name, range
GovType, FocusEconomy, Player
OutputType, Trade, Local
}
; Unsophisticated governance leads to lazy loafers
[effect_govtype_primitive_production]
type= Output_Penalty_Tile
value = 2
reqs=
{ type, name, range
GovType, Primitive, Player
}
or
; Temple effects reduced under 'rational' governments, unless it is a cult of
personality.
[effect_temple_rational]
type= Make_Content
value = -1
reqs=
{ type, name, range
GovType, Rational, Player
}
nreqs
{ type, name, range
GovType, CultLeader, Player
}
These are simple but common instances where flags would help. In more complex
situations, such as where a wonder improves the effect of a building, but only
under/in a different way under different governments.
Again, I am not a programmer. I can't svn or diff to save my life but I will
have a go at implementing this on a daily snapshot. If I can get it to work
(not likely, but I'll try), I'll upload the modified files and let someone
smarter diff them.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?3325
___
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] unittypes capped at 64
On 17 June 2012 00:59, animecent...@gmail.com wrote: NOTE: I am not a programmer. Is there a reason why the number of custom unittype flags are limited to 4? Increasing the limit should be technically straightforward. Freeciv would just (regardless of number of custom flags actually used) use a bit more memory. I choose value 4 when originally implementing custom flags when many people though that there should be no custom flags at all, and we were able to convert just 1 old flag (Airbase) to custom flag in any of the provided rulesets. Note that excessive use of custom flags is likely to break AI big time. Give us some use-case. How many custom flags your ruleset would need? could the spaces for 'horse, fighter, aegis, pikeman, helicopter and airunit' be freed for use with custom types? It seems all of their bonuses can already be implemented via ruleset effects I don't think so. 1) There's no effects that do what those bonuses do 2) They require certain kind of defender (in addition to attacker). While effect requirement lists are being checked, unit type requirements are checked from attacker - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3326] Change range for city gov from -2020 to -inf-1920
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3326 Summary: Change range for city gov from -2020 to -inf-1920 Project: Freeciv Submitted by: henkutsu_tama Submitted on: Sat 16 Jun 2012 10:46:11 PM GMT Category: general Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: By -inf, I mean that the cma just won't care how low that value goes, it has no bottom. This would solve the problem with bug #18767, as you can simply tell the cma to not care if the city is in deficit. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3326 ___ 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 #3326] Change range for city gov from -2020 to -inf-1920
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3326 (project freeciv): A similar thing was suggested in bug #16184. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3326 ___ 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 #16184] Governor minimal surplus of -20 not low enough
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #16184 (project freeciv): See also patch #3326. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16184 ___ 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 #3326] Change range for city gov from -2020 to -inf-1920
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3326 (project freeciv): Hmm. Seems that the minimum surplus value is left to the client to decide, and is a signed int. Does that mean it could be set to -128 or -256? Still better than -20, it would take some effort to reach that low. If an edge case is a problem and difficult to fix, move it out of the way and throw a rug on it. :P - Awesome teacher I once had. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3326 ___ 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 #19818] Experimental ruleset: worker veteran system has problems
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?19818 Summary: Experimental ruleset: worker veteran system has problems Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sun Jun 17 02:16:43 2012 Category: rulesets Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Any Planned Release: 2.4.0,2.5.0 ___ Details: In patch #2370, a custom veteran system was added for Workers in the experimental ruleset (working man, journeyman, foreman) to show off the new generalised veteran system. However, it has some issues and infelicities: * Workers are flagged as NoVeteran, so it has no effect. * If you remove that, you run into the problem that Barracks will promote a Worker, which you might not want. ** No easy way to fix it, although presumably you can add fiddly nreqs on Barracks' effects. But then the online help will lie... * The work_raise_chance stats are far too high. A fresh Worker has a 99% chance of becoming a foreman after just 16 turns of work (where a foreman works as fast as an Engineer, although he doesn't move as fast). Wants to be single figures, really. See attached spreadsheet. * Engineers don't have such a veteran system. So if you upgrade Workers, at best you lose your veterancy, but I haven't checked if they transmute into hardened etc Engineers. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19818 ___ 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 #19818] Experimental ruleset: worker veteran system has problems
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19818 (project freeciv): (Also, I'm wondering about the alternative names apprentice, journeyman, master. But perhaps that's about more skilled jobs than we're talking about here.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19818 ___ 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 #19818] Experimental ruleset: worker veteran system has problems
Additional Item Attachment, bug #19818 (project freeciv): File name: veterans.ods Size:50 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?19818 ___ 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 #3322] Resource requirements
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3322 (project freeciv):
I can see two ways in which you would want to search for a resource; Just for
itself, and for it on a terrain. e.g.
; Voting governments have a senate that may prevent war
; any fish
reqs =
{ type, name, range
Resource, (Fish), Adjacent
}
; only lake fish
reqs =
{ type, name, range
Terrain, Lake (Fish), Adjacent
}
So which is more extensible? The first seems simpler but there is no way to
get the information of the tile back. Putting a terrain req below it will
match even if the terrain is in another square on any range other than
CityCentre or Local (Am I correct on this?). As such, I recommend the second
way. Even though it takes may take more reqs to define events, it seems a more
powerful method.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?3322
___
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
