Update of bug #22200 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22203 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22164 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22199 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22198 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22202 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22201 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #22171 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of patch #4768 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4816 (project freeciv):
My plan was to enable zones of control in deep oceans because I like naval
units to be able to protect adjacent units without moving to the same tile,
and because it could encourage the use of naval formations.
But I do not like to enable ZOCs
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?4816
Summary: civ2civ3: ZoCs not affected by non military units.
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 17 jun 2014 12:26:24 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 -
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4806 (project freeciv):
Updated patch that use mines instead of buoys as requisite to get extra shield
in deep ocean when there is an offshore platform in the city.
I was going to create a different patch, but it would conflit with this one,
and they are related
Follow-up Comment #14, patch #4608 (project freeciv):
Updated patch for TRUNK:
- Added Trench and Airfield bases, as pre-requisite for Fortress and Airbase,
in order to prevent the construction of full bases in one single turn.
- Airbases and Fortresses can be built on river tiles again.
It may
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?4817
Summary: [Metaticket] civ2civ3
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 17 jun 2014 16:20:46 UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
Update of bug #22209 (project freeciv):
Planned Release: 2.4.3, 2.5.0, 2.6.0 = 2.5.0, 2.6.0
___
Follow-up Comment #2:
Dropping S2_4 from the targets as there might be savegames that are not
technically scenarios in
Update of bug #22192 (project freeciv):
Category:None = rulesets
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Planned Release:
Update of bug #22191 (project freeciv):
Category:None = rulesets
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Planned Release:
Update of bug #22188 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to: bdanee = cazfi
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4797 (project freeciv):
I worry about this change: as much as I'd like to see move_type dropped from
the dai_find_source_building() check, the various times I tried to do it, I
lost confidence in the updated validity of the (build_walls) guarded section
of code. Part
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?4818
Summary: classic/experimental/multiplayer: set HasNoZOC on
Explorers, etc
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Tue 17 Jun 2014 21:16:57 BST
Category: rulesets
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4816 (project freeciv):
- Zones of Control are no longer established by non-military
units (Small Land and Merchant classes), so they do not affect
the movements of enemy units.
(Raised patch #4818 to do the same to other rulesets.)
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #22208 (project freeciv):
I concur that this isn't used, and that the example fix would be correct.
Given the oddities I encountered trying not to pass move type, I'm unsure if
the AI behaviour wouldn't change in unanticipated ways if this bug was fixed,
and agree that
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4818 (project freeciv):
I find ZoC imposition from Settlers/Workers to be useful, in part because
Workers are cheap, yet remain useful over a long time (as opposed to early
inexpensive military units, which become an upkeep burden or require costly
upgrading). I
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4818 (project freeciv):
I find ZoC imposition from Settlers/Workers to be useful [...]
Well, yes, clearly it's useful if you're using it to get in someone else's way
:)
The case that annoyed me most recently was a friendly (ceasefire) AI nation's
Settlers wandering
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4818 (project freeciv):
Though fixing my problem is mater of fixing my ruleset, not supplied ones,
I've got regularly to a situation where I've conquered AI city in the early
game and then his/her nearby Worker has lost all purpose to move anywhere from
the
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4818 (project freeciv):
Right. I remove my opposition. I've also been stuck with peaceful AI units
sitting on useful territory, forcing me to either ally or declare war, which
is exceedingly annoying (and unlike a human player, one can't discuss the idea
of moving
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?4819
Summary: Allow imposition of a pythoagorean movement cost
penalty for diagonal moves in rect
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: persia
Submitted on: Wed 18 Jun 2014 06:08:12 AM JST
Category:
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21420 (project freeciv):
Sorry to have forgotten this for a while. Updated, and issues addressed.
(file #21072)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: worklist-explanation-improvements+less-spaces.patch
Update of patch #4681 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4797 (project freeciv):
(although perhaps the improvements from better checking of
unit_type related criteria are better than the penalties from
the lack of move_type restriction)
That's what I figured, not necessarily at the moment, but this enables future
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4739 (project freeciv):
On civ2civ3: I agree that having a single 'editor' for the ruleset who's
thinking as deeply about balance and AI issues as you are is very valuable.
Personally (not speaking for anyone else) I'd like you to retain some sort of
editorial control
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4797 (project freeciv):
Indeed. Given bug #22208, I don't understand the odd behaviours seen with
changing this use of move_type. May as well apply this, but watch for
unexpected behaviour.
___
Reply to this
Update of patch #4459 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Need Info
Assigned to:None = persia
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of patch #4679 (project freeciv):
Status: Need Info = Ready For Test
Summary: Remove nreqs support entirely = Convert nreqs to
reqs on ruleset load, and only use reqs internally.
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #4739 (project freeciv):
While working on a new version of civ2civ3, I liked to keep the
previous versions updated as much as possible in order to
receive some feedback about the latest changes.
While setting this system up, one thing to consider is savegame
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4679 (project freeciv):
I assume that freeciv-ruledit now does not save anything as nreqs, but ruleset
get converted to present=FALSE model simply by loading it to freeciv-ruledit
and saving.
___
Reply to this
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #4679 (project freeciv):
I haven't tested that, but loading should convert, and I removed the save
function for nreqs, so it should always save to reqs. At the current state of
development, my interaction with freeciv-ruledit is mostly limited to making
sure it
Follow-up Comment #6, patch #4679 (project freeciv):
The only test-case I ever use for freeciv-ruledit part when changing ruleset
format is 1) Load ruleset to it 2) Save 3) Try to load that ruleset saved by
freeciv-ruledit to server (4) In some simple cases also manually inspect saved
rulesets
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4795 (project freeciv):
I'm a bit worried about the amount of variable renames in build system where
some code-paths are really rarely taken and could remain untested for a long
time, and language being one where typoed variable names do not cause clear
error messages
Update of patch #4795 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
Follow-up Comment #7, patch #4679 (project freeciv):
Tested with something similar to a reversion of patch #4411 (some interaction
with bug #22080 means I may not have gotten this perfectly correct), and from
manual inspection of the ruledit-generated effects.ruleset, it appears that
this does
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4813 (project freeciv):
Is the new code in adjust_improvement_wants_by_effects() involving the
players_iterate() section intended to be part of this patch? The rest looks
like a nice separation of concerns, without meaningful code differences, but
this bit stands out
Follow-up Comment #8, patch #4679 (project freeciv):
Found a few more instances when trying to work on the logical next patch:
expanded patch attached.
(file #21074)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name:
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4813 (project freeciv):
Err, please ignore the prior comment: I understand now. Apologies for the
noise.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?4813
44 matches
Mail list logo
