[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22082] Lua disaster signal can't suppress message "We survived the disaster without serious damages."

[J. M. Gorbach]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22082 (project freeciv):

> Perhaps we can move the emission of the message to a default signal handler
in default.lua instead, and make emitting the message ruleset Lua's
responsibility?

I agree.

___

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 #4718] Requirement for city state (disorder, celebration, etc)

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4718 (project freeciv):

> only have range "Local"

Wouldn't it be "City"?


___

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 #4720] Random trait value

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Random trait value
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Mon 26 May 2014 02:22:45 AM EEST
Category: general
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.6.0

___

Details:

Replace exact trait value definitions in rulesets with a range. Each of the
old values are replaced with two values with "_min" and "_max" suffices.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Mon 26 May 2014 02:22:45 AM EEST  Name: TraitRange.patch  Size: 19kB  
By: cazfi



___

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 #4714] Modpack installer man update

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #4714 (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] [patch #4713] Adding and removing techs

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #4713 (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] [patch #4711] Make ferry free when passanger lost

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #4711 (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 #22089] Adjustable buy cost

[Edgaras Šeputis]

URL:
  

 Summary: Adjustable buy cost
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: morphles
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 08:27:45 PM UTC
Category: general
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: 

___

Details:

It would be good to give rulesets ability to adjust shield cost when buying
items. And maybe even disabling buing altogether.




___

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 #22085] civ2: reduce max trade routes from 4 to 3

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22085 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => jtn


___

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 #22083] apply_disaster() can reference city after it's freed

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #22083 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => jtn


___

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 #3793] [metaticket] Help updates for 2.5.0

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3793 (project freeciv):

Since the term 'native' is now in wider use in autogenerated help text, it
should probably be explained in helpdata.txt.

___

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 #22085] civ2: reduce max trade routes from 4 to 3

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2: reduce max trade routes from 4 to 3
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 13:41:49 BST
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: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

cazfi's release notes have a note about Max_Trade_Routes "(civ2 compatibility
should be checked)".

I don't have authoritative information, but the two Google hits I found which
have an opinion (civfanatics ,
civilization.wikia
) claim the
maximum is 3 (as we already have for civ1).

In the absence of better information, I'm inclined to change this for 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] [bug #22083] apply_disaster() can reference city after it's freed

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22083 (project freeciv):

> Having DE_REDUCE_POP able to destroy cities seems very fierce
Discussion of this tangent moved to new bug #22084.

___

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 #22084] RFC: random disasters destroying cities is too fierce

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: RFC: random disasters destroying cities is too
fierce
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 13:17:00 BST
Category: rulesets
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Need Info
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: S2_5 r24940
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

In classic and civ2civ3 rulesets, as well as 'alien', random disasters can
happen to any city, including immediately after founding, which strike with no
notice and there's nothing the player can do about it.

Most of the effects are recoverable setbacks and thus minor annoyances which
are reasonable to be random.

However, "ReducePopulation" can destroy a city of size 1. Destroying a city,
including all its buildings, maybe wonders (which we don't let migration do),
and losing territory, seems much harsher than the others.

(civ1 also has this property with its Famine, Flood, Plague, and Volcano
disasters; but there we should implement whatever's historically accurate; I
don't know what that is. 'experimental' ruleset has disasters but not
ReducePopulation ones.)

What do people think? Am I being overly precious?
There's an argument that newly established (or migrated-almost-to-nothing)
colonies _are_ vulnerable to the whims of fate.
But I think there'll be players (e.g. me) who'd be content with the other
effects but not this one, and in the absence of some fine-grained way for them
to express that preference, such players will turn off all disasters forever
with disasters=0 after the first time their newly founded city is destroyed
before it has a chance to grow. So I'm minded to tone down the default.



If we do decide to tone it down:

For 2.5, we can just add MinSize=1 reqs to any disaster that has
ReducePopulation as an effect. This does mean other effects don't happen
either (so a size 1 city with Nuclear Plant is spuriously immune to fallout),
but is otherwise by and large good enough.

For 2.6 and later, if patch #4719 is implemented, we could use that instead.




___

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 #4719] New disaster effect "ReducePopulationNoDestroy"

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: New disaster effect "ReducePopulationNoDestroy"
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 13:07:55 BST
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:

The "ReducePopulation" disaster effect can destroy a city, which might be
overly harsh for some tastes.

While it's possible to add a "MinSize" requirement to a disaster to prevent
this, this will also prevent any other effects such as pollution/fallout from
occurring, which isn't ideal.

So I propose a new disaster effect like ReducePopulationNoDestroy, which is
just like ReducePopulation but can't occur at size 1.

Currently targeting 2.6. Could arguably also be added to S2_5 pre 2.5.0-beta1,
since it's backwards compatible with rulesets created at format freeze.




___

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 #22083] apply_disaster() can reference city after it's freed

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22083 (project freeciv):

> I'm inclined to add a similar disaster effect that can only 
> reduce population, not destroy a city.
Wait, we can do that with reqs. Never mind.

___

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 #4718] Requirement for city state (disorder, celebration, etc)

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Requirement for city state (disorder, celebration,
etc)
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 12:44:28 BST
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

(Status: Half-Baked)

It seems like it would be useful to be able to reference a city's state of
happiness in the effects system -- whether it's in disorder or celebrating (or
content), and maybe whether it's currently happy/unhappy too.

For instance, this would allow implementing the civ3 nuclear meltdown
disaster, which apparently can only happen to cities in disorder.

Probably needs to be a new universal, and probably can only have range
"Local", and thus apply only to city contexts (such as disasters).




___

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 #3793] [metaticket] Help updates for 2.5.0

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3793 (project freeciv):

There's nowhere for disasters to appear in the online help.

Not sure what to do about this. Having a new "disasters" section seems like
overkill.

In rulesets like civ1 where you can build something to prevent disasters,
ruleset author could write in building help "Without this building your city
may randomly be struck by plague, losing population." But some rulesets (e.g.
alien) don't let the player do anything about the disaster, so there's nowhere
natural for the ruleset author to document the disasters.

___

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 #22083] apply_disaster() can reference city after it's freed

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: apply_disaster() can reference city after it's freed
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 12:27:18 BST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: S2_5 r24940
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

I think that a disaster which has the ReducePopulation effect and some other
effect (such as 'Nuclear Accident' in the classic ruleset), if the city was
size 1 and thus destroyed, can cause pcity to be referenced after being freed.
(Untested.)

Disaster effects after ReducePopulation should check city_or_null (or possibly
pcity should become NULL) before doing their thing.

Also, disaster effects should be reordered. It's silly saying a building is
destroyed when the whole city is then lost. On the other hand,
pollution/fallout effects can sensibly occur simultaneously with city loss, so
should be moved before DE_REDUCE_POP.

(Having DE_REDUCE_POP able to destroy cities seems very fierce for a random
disaster. I'm inclined to add a similar disaster effect that can only reduce
population, not destroy a city. But that's a new ticket. Too late for 2.5?)




___

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 #21992] Useless but non-obsolete city improvements not redundant with present==FALSE effects requirements

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of bug #21992 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: => 2.6.0  


___

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] [bug #22080] Non-cumulative Barracks effects not right wrt building redundancy

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #22080 (project freeciv):

> Is this related to bug #21992, or is there something else 
> causing strikethroughs?
AIUI, bug #21992 is about negated=TRUE/present=FALSE not causing buildings to
be considered redundant.
My S2_5 patch will use nreqs so won't be vulnerable to that. I guess the trunk
version will use present=FALSE in line with general policy there, so will not
be effective until bug #21992 is fixed.

___

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 #22082] Lua disaster signal can't suppress message "We survived the disaster without serious damages."

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Lua disaster signal can't suppress message "We
survived the disaster without serious damages."
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 12:08:34 BST
Category: None
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: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

In apply_disaster(), if none of the built-in disasters fire, the message "We
survived the disaster without serious damages." is emitted before the script
signal fires. This may be unwanted for disasters implemented in Lua.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any way for the Lua signal handler to
return whether a disaster occurred. Perhaps we can move the emission of the
message to a default signal handler in default.lua instead, and make emitting
the message ruleset Lua's responsibility?

(Alternatively we could just get rid of the message.)




___

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 #22080] Non-cumulative Barracks effects not right wrt building redundancy

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22080 (project freeciv):

Is this related to bug #21992, or is there something else causing
strikethroughs?

___

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 #3137] Cumulative Barracks and Sun Tzu documentation

[Jacob Nevins]

Update of patch #3137 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => In Progress
 Assigned to:None => jtn
 Planned Release:   2.5.0 => 2.5.0, 2.6.0   

___

Follow-up Comment #4:

Taking ticket to update ruleset help for where we ended up on S2_5.

___

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 #22081] Cumulative veteran effects for sea units (Port Facility vs Lighthouse, etc)?

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Cumulative veteran effects for sea units (Port
Facility vs Lighthouse, etc)?
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 11:21:53 BST
Category: rulesets
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Need Info
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: S2_5 r24940
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

Some current rulesets allow cumulative Veteran_Build effects for sea units
from both the Port Facility and a wonder, so that players with both would get
Hardened sea units.

We deliberately allowed this for Sun Tzu (patch #3062). However, unlike that
case, in these cases the player's strategy would have to be quite distorted to
get the bonus, since Port Facility and the relevant wonders are in quite
different places in the tech tree, and often there's only a narrow window
before the wonder is obsoleted. I don't think we should create an incentive
for play like that, and I assume the current situation is an accident.

* classic, experimental: It's possible to get Port Facility without obsoleting
Lighthouse (Magnetism), but it's unlikely unless you do it deliberately.
* multiplayer: The relevant small wonder (Magellan) is never obsolete, so
cumulative effect with Port Facility is quite likely.
* civ2civ3: Lighthouse-obsoleting tech, Engineering, is prerequisite for Port
Facility. You could only see this if you conquered a city with Port Facility
while having inferior tech and Lighthouse.
* (The civ2 ruleset has the same structure as classic, but only has one
veteran level. It should still be fixed for the sorts of reasons in bug
#22080.)

Shall we remove the cumulative sea veterancy from all these rulesets?
By default I'll assume yes; if no-one complains (or gets there first) I'll
take this ticket before 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] [bug #22080] Non-cumulative Barracks effects not right wrt building redundancy

[Jacob Nevins]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22080 (project freeciv):

(Aside: in civ2, it's best if the exclusivity nreqs between Barracks / Sun Tzu
live in the Sun Tzu effect -- that way Barracks isn't made redundant by Sun
Tzu, which is probably what we want, as Barracks are useful to keep around in
case you lose the city with Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu will never be considered
redundant because of its wider applicability. This is the status quo.)

___

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 #22080] Non-cumulative Barracks effects not right wrt building redundancy

[Jacob Nevins]

URL:
  

 Summary: Non-cumulative Barracks effects not right wrt
building redundancy
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 11:07:28 BST
Category: rulesets
Severity: 2 - Minor
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: In Progress
 Assigned to: jtn
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

The nreqs added in bug #20232 to protect against simultaneous effects from
Barracks / Barracks II cause slightly suboptimal UI:
* Newer Barracks' effects are prevented by presence of older ones, so the
newer buildings are considered redundant. (This can be seen in civ1 ruleset.)
* The HP_Regen effect isn't protected against being cumulative. This has no
gameplay effect (since it's a 100% effect) but prevents buildings from being
considered redundant (in rulesets other than civ1).

This is mostly cosmetic -- "redundant" buildings are displayed with
strikethrough / (*) in clients and are candidates for the "Sell Redundant"
button. It doesn't change the game rules. (I haven't checked if the AI also
uses this notion, but if it does I doubt it changes gameplay much.)

The civ2civ3 ruleset in S2_5 svn already gets all of this right.




___

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 #4717] Add "Quickening" revolution length type

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4717 (project freeciv):

- Updated against svn

(file #20802)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: QuickeningRevolution-2.patch   Size:14 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