[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20504] City defenders rampaging

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20504 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: => 2.4.0, 2.5.0   

___

Follow-up Comment #2:

> Attack adjacent tiles (staying itself in the city) for juicy
> targets

Above works in this new version. Also S2_4 version included.

(file #17189, file #17190)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: DefenderRampage-2.patchSize:1 KB
File name: DefenderRampage-S2_4-2.patch   Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3693] Worker food upkeep less important factor

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of patch #3693 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release:   2.5.0 => 2.4.0, 2.5.0   


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3384] autosettler check current danger

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of patch #3384 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: => 2.4.0, 2.5.0   

___

Follow-up Comment #5:

- S2_4 version.
  This changes ai-module interface capability. I think this is ok, we have
never claimed to freeze it for S2_4.

(file #17188)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: AutosettlerSafeTile-S2_4.patch Size:5 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3384] autosettler check current danger

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of patch #3384 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 

___

Follow-up Comment #4:

This patch makes autosettlers not to evaluate dangerous tiles at all when
finding work. Every turn there's check for human player's autosettlers if tile
is now dangerous. If it is, current work is aborted, and new one searched for.
For AI there's new AI callback called for every working autosettler every
turn. Callback implemented for default AI does just the same as human player
autosettlers - if tile has turned dangerous, current work is aborted.

(file #17187)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: AutosettlerSafeTile.patch  Size:7 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3383] autosettler choose safe tile to work on

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #15, patch #3383 (project freeciv):

> What is an "EC callback" ?

Function returning Extra Cost for the move from tile to tile to path finding.

This ticket is now about selection of the safe route to destination only.
Avoiding dangerous destination tiles falls to patch #3384, at least with the
version I'm just finishing.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3384] autosettler check current danger

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3384 (project freeciv):

I'll see if I can implement something. Your implementation was in the common
function used by all units - so even human controlled units were unable to do
anything near enemy. Kind of bad if you cannot build fortresses near the
borderline ;-)


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20504] City defenders rampaging

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20504 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Here's the patch I'm testing.
- Leave city only if you can take empty enemy city - I assume this to be
statistically worth the risk that enemy then takes the original city
- Attack adjacent tiles (staying itself in the city) for juicy targets - this
might mean killing entire stack of enemies that would otherwise get to attack
against us each and every

(file #17186)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: DefenderRampage.patch  Size:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20504] City defenders rampaging

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: City defenders rampaging
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Wed 13 Feb 2013 05:34:25 AM EET
Category: ai
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

dai_military_defend() is supposed to handle unit assigned to defend a city,
including the case unit already is in that city and enemy is next to it.
dai_military_defend() calls dai_military_rampage() with parameters that denote
that any target is worth going after. This may mean that defender leaves the
city to kill target a couple of tiles away. So, if there's strong attacker
adjacent to city ready to enter, and weaker enemy further away, defender
leaves city defenseless for the strong attacker to take while it itself hunts
down the weaker enemy.

It also seems to me that even if there was no stronger attacker present, the
code would never draw the defender back to city. Once it's outside, it next
turn loses its DEFEND_HOME task and only units already inside city get that
task (re)assigned.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3697] When city growth is blocked, AI shouldn't give any value to food surplus

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: When city growth is blocked, AI shouldn't give any
value to food surplus 
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Wed 13 Feb 2013 04:17:56 AM EET
Category: ai
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

Noticed size 8 AI city building Aqueduct. It had still arranged workers for
food surplus (that went to waste) and not for shields (which would speed
Aqueduct building).




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3692] Reduce SHIELD_WEIGHTING

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3692 (project freeciv):

Another problem is that it doesn't understand connecting irrigation. Plains
not next to existing water is considered for mining to Forest only as
irrigation is impossible. It does the mining, as it brings benefit (1/1/0 ->
1/2/0). Even if irrigation then later gets extended to neighbour tile, Forest
will never be irrigated back to Plains as explained in previous comment.
There's slim hope to get that part kludged (while we wait for more extensice
rewrite to future versions) by increasing TRADE_WEIGHTING so that Plains gets
roads (1/1/0 -> 1/1/1) rather than is turned to Forest (1/1/0 -> 1/2/0).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3692] Reduce SHIELD_WEIGHTING

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3692 (project freeciv):

Workers ending with forest everywhere is actually unavoidable with our
rulesets and the fact that AI considers only one step forward. Converting
forest to plains, without then irrigating it or building a road, only reduces
tile output 1/2/0 -> 1/1/0. Irrigation of Jungles or Swamps would lead to
2/0/0 Grassland while Mining leads to 1/2/0 Forest.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3683] River type specific gfx

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of patch #3683 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20503] .spec suffix means both common client code gfxfile spec and gui-sdl's theme's spec

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20503 (project freeciv):

 Summary: .spec suffix means both common client code gfxfile
spec and gui-sdl's themeä => .spec suffix means both common client code
gfxfile spec and gui-sdl's theme's spec

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Noticed that gui-sdl does not start after "scripts/capabilities -c spec ..."
Reason is that not all .spec files it updated are tilespec files. There's
gui-sdl theme .specs that it should not touch (with those parameters)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20503] .spec suffix means both common client code gfxfile spec and gui-sdl's themeä

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: .spec suffix means both common client code gfxfile
spec and gui-sdl's themeä
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Wed 13 Feb 2013 01:54:23 AM EET
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: 

___

Details:






___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20501] Help could be clearer about CanFortify defence bonus vs cities

2013-02-12 Thread David Lowe 
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #20501 (project freeciv):

One thing i've noticed in conjunction with server-side auto-attack: units that
have been given the 'Fortify' command can be reliably counted on to engage
approaching enemies.  Units that have been given the 'Sentry' command aren't
as courageous.  Thus, there is still a benefit to having the manual fortify
command.

> Then there are Worker-type units, which gui shortcut 'f' makes to build
fortress instead of fortifying.

When i was new, this part was somewhat confusing that the same command does
two different things.  Besides, there have been times when i wished i could
have a worker just hunker down to the mountain for a turn or two.  However,
that is getting out of the scope of a 'docs' ticket.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20501] Help could be clearer about CanFortify defence bonus vs cities

2013-02-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20501 (project freeciv):

Then there are Worker-type units, which gui shortcut 'f' makes to build
fortress instead of fortifying. They still have "CanFortify" flag, so I think
gui is the only think preventign them from havign forifying action too - in
theory modified client could send fortify request for them.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3672] Select "CanFortify" defender

2013-02-12 Thread Jacob Nevins 
Update of patch #3672 (project freeciv):

 Summary: Select "CanFortify"defender => Select "CanFortify"
defender


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #3672] Select "CanFortify"defender

2013-02-12 Thread Jacob Nevins 
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3672 (project freeciv):

So, if this is only currently used for city defenders, the net effect on S2_4
is to prioritise CanFortify units (which automatically get a bonus in cities)
above others, all other things being equal?

(Were it ever to be used for units outside cities, I assume we're claiming
CanFortify => fortified on the assumption that when the time comes to actually
defend, the units will have been sensible enough to have fortified if
necessary.)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20501] Help could be clearer about CanFortify defence bonus vs cities

2013-02-12 Thread Jacob Nevins 
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20501 (project freeciv):

I vaguely wonder about making this clearer in the UI -- currently there's
nothing stopping players from needlessly fortifying their units in cities in
the mistaken belief that this will help. Perhaps if units in cities never
reach "fortified" state (grey fort icon) and are permanently "fortifying"
(yellow "F") when inside cities, and if a city is built around them they go
from fortified to fortifying, would hint (somewhat obliquely) that something
funny is going on?

I don't want to take the order away entirely, as I sometimes use it as an
alternative to Sentry when I don't want a unit to wake up and hassle me every
time a foreigner passes by.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  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 #20501] Help could be clearer about CanFortify defence bonus vs cities

2013-02-12 Thread Jacob Nevins 
URL:
  

 Summary: Help could be clearer about CanFortify defence bonus
vs cities
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Tue Feb 12 10:01:29 2013
Category: docs
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: jtn
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

CanFortify units get their fortify defence bonus automatically when in cities,
regardless of what they're doing. I somehow hadn't twigged that this was tied
to the CanFortify flag; it became apparent when reviewing patch #3672.

The built-in help has this to say on the subject:

In individual unit help:


  * May fortify, granting a 50% defensive bonus.


Could helpfully point out that this happens automatically in cities.

In helpdata.txt, section "Combat" ("Default Combat Rules"):


 - If the defender is a land unit, and is either fortified or inside a city,
its strength is multiplied by 1.5.


All of this text is flagged as being for the default ruleset, so it's more
excusable here.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev