[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #22079] AI settler doesn't consider base defense bonus when picking city spot
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #22079 (project freeciv): do you mean that when passing vtile to player_can_build_extra(), is_req_active() is considering tile_city(vtile), which does not return vcity? Yes. tile_city(vtile) will return what tile_city(ptile) would return. And no chance to return vcity. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22079 ___ 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 #22281] Help should show Courthouse has no effect in presence of Palace
Update of bug #22281 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22281 ___ 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 #22079] AI settler doesn't consider base defense bonus when picking city spot
Update of bug #22079 (project freeciv): Status:Works For Me = None Assigned to: persia = None ___ Follow-up Comment #5: In that case, my patches don't work, and I'm unsure how to make them work without deep requirements inspection, which I'd really not prefer. Also, looking at upgrade_city_extras(), it probably makes sense to try to find a way to check for conflicting extras (keeping in mind that if two extras conflict, and both would be created, the first in the iteration sequence would have blocked the creation of the second), which the candidate patches didn't handle correctly (tiles that could have multiple conflicting defensive extras would gain more bonus than they ought to have done). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22079 ___ 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 #22260] tech_want never zeroed (not even initialized)
Update of bug #22260 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22260 ___ 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] Freeciv AI ruleset
A few tips on the AI ruleset; In essence, the ruleset means that a human player is going to go one of two ways, either they lose early because they cannot develop fast enough to ward off hostile AI nations and warred to death or they win because they research and develop the opposition to death, the game becomes boring because either humans lose early or win in the long term, knowing they are going to win well before the actual end. The AI scores rarely get above 400, so as soon as the human reaches a score of 400 they know they are winning, but that is just ⅓ into the game itself. Set out below are some of the reasons why this happens; Differentiation between different combat units There seems to be no differentiation between different combat units. EG a sea unit will attack a ground enemy when there is nothing to be gained by it, purely because it can and will win and usually because the ground unit is weak. However, in doing so, it will merely weaken itself to counter attack from a stronger enemy sea or air unit. It is very rare for a sea unit to prosper in attacking an enemy ground unit outside of a city. Ruleset change; Sea units attack sea units or cities only. Ruleset change : A ground or air unit only attacks another unit for an objective (defence/attack), at the moment the objective seems irrelevant to the decision unless its critical. Warfare It seems that there is too much bias in the ruleset to begin warfare. Warfare is expensive, especially when units are constantly being lost in such warfare, it should really and only be a resort once (1) the nation is large enough to accommodate it and (2) the nation has the capability of replacing the units lost in warfare to the same or similar extent without affecting other advancements. The current system is so warfare orientated that an AI nation will almost be happy to commit suicide trying to beat an AI opponent and leaving itself completely unready for an attack from elsewhere. Furthermore, it seems that warfare in one part of the nation is far more important than development in another part of the nation. What happens is that two nations with the same border are constantly at war with each other, constantly losing units in that war and seemingly never ending the war despite the fact that both will be dramatically weakened by war and will lack the ability to actually defend against another enemy afterwards and they are so concentrating on war that they lose the ability to develop in other areas. This has improved with the diplomacy but is still an issue as diplomacy doesn't seem to be used by AI very much. Ruleset change : War should be a last resort not a first decision. Perhaps increase the parameters to make was less appealing. Also peace should be the first objective. Also, it seems that warfare, once instigated just goes on and on and on, there seems to be no period of consolidation, so an AI army will be like locusts, going around killing everything it can but leaving very little behind. Once a city is conquered, the AI should consolidate. Ruleset change : At least 5 turns before the next city is attacked. Also there is substantial unhappiness due to many military units being outside the city fighting elsewhere. This leads to a city having to cut production in order to deal with unhappiness. Ruleset change : only 1 military unit that is supported by an AI city is allowed to leave the city itself. Lack of research I find that the AI research seems to shoot along to a certain level and then the research slows down dramatically. The easy way to win is to stay out of the battles and make peace until you are way beyond the AI research level and then make units that are much stronger (such as stealth bombers). Research should continue as a priority in AI continually but I suspect the AI ruleset doesn't put enough emphasis on research and lets it drag at whatever speed it takes. Also, every city I build has a university in early build. Not a single AI city I take over has a University. That means that I can produce more research from 6 cities than an AI with 20 cities. Ruleset change : Put more emphasis onto research and less onto warfare. Lack of proper development of cities The AI really only gives a city the barest minimum requirements and usually not even that. EG my cities have 25 structures, the ones I take over usually have 1-2 and maximum 5. No city I take over has (1) factory, (2) bank, (3) Stock Exchange, (4) mass transit, (5) supermarket, (6) super highways, (7) sanitation. Due to this, the AI cities stay very small and don't develop. Once my cities are developed, the AI can never take them over or even match them. Ruleset change : Development of cities needs a much higher priority put onto it in the ruleset, unless a critical build is required. Lack of use of the research that has occurred already Many times I take over a
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4878] Cities cannot be built on Alien ruleset Boiling Oceans
Update of patch #4878 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4878 ___ 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 #22280] Obsoleting tech of not-yet-loaded buildings checked
Update of bug #22280 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22280 ___ 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 #4916] snapshot target for installer makefile
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4916 Summary: snapshot target for installer makefile Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Tue 08 Jul 2014 11:37:18 PM 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: 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Details: Add make target snapshot to Windows installer build. It's meant to be used for creating snapshot builds from svn checkout, and it (unlike builds from tarball) assumes maintainer tools (automake, autoconf etc) to be present. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Tue 08 Jul 2014 11:37:18 PM EEST Name: SnapshotInstaller.patch Size: 833B By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=21328 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4916 ___ 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 #4811] civ2civ3: increase explorer vision
Update of patch #4811 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Done ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4811 ___ 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 #4811] civ2civ3: increase explorer vision
Update of patch #4811 (project freeciv): Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4811 ___ 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 #4738] Ruleset defined culture victory criteria
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4738 (project freeciv): - Updated against svn (file #21329) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: RulesetCultureVic-2.patch Size:8 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4738 ___ 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 #22124] double free or corruption on sdl2-client shutdown
Update of bug #22124 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Assigned to:None = cazfi Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22124 ___ 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 #4917] Accept keypress in addition to left mouse to some of the main functions of sdl2-client
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?4917 Summary: Accept keypress in addition to left mouse to some of the main functions of sdl2-client Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Wed 09 Jul 2014 01:29:02 AM EEST Category: client-sdl2 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: It's quite surprising that the current code works on sdl-client, but as that seems to be the case, I'm not changing it along the sdl2-client. Problem with almost all the keys being unfunctional is that the action code checks the original SDL event that lead to widget action callback firing (or even to change its state to 'pressed'). They consistently check that button in question is SDL_BUTTON_LEFT. The button in question makes no sense at all when the firing event is keypress. While in sdl-client button number seems to be consistently SDL_BUTTON_LEFT for keypress events, that's not the case in sdl2-client. So, in *many* places code: if (Main.event.button.button == SDL_BUTTON_LEFT) needs to be replaced with: if (Main.event.type == SDL_KEYDOWN || (Main.event.type == SDL_MOUSEBUTTONDOWN Main.event.button.button == SDL_BUTTON_LEFT)) Attached pacth is just the beginning (until full review of the sdl2-client code), but it does handle the most important ones (unit actions, turn done) so that one can play a bit with sdl2-client. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Wed 09 Jul 2014 01:29:02 AM EEST Name: MainKeysFix.patch Size: 8kB By: cazfi http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=21330 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4917 ___ 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 #21009] There's no way to cancel production change
Update of bug #21009 (project freeciv): Planned Release: = 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21009 ___ 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 #22296] civ1 rivers lost their trade bonus?
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?22296 Summary: civ1 rivers lost their trade bonus? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Wed 09 Jul 2014 03:10:47 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: Currently, rivers in the civ1 ruleset have no trade bonus. The manual http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/manual/civ1_man.htm makes a big thing of the trade benefits of rivers, so presumably they should have some. Haven't checked the exact parameters though. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22296 ___ 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 #22296] civ1 rivers lost their trade bonus?
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #22296 (project freeciv): That manual seems to imply rivers are a separate terrain type, rather than being a special resource. Note the commentary about food production and comparison to grassland. Also see http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/refcharts/civ1terchart.htm (terrain manual with River given first class treatment) and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3026877postcount=6 (screenshot from map editor, again with River being treated as a terrain). Given that rivers appear contiguous from http://www.civfanatics.com/images/civ1/earthmap.gif (and I can't find any other civ1 maps), having rivers as terrain rather than as paths would require some generator modifications (or luascript to repace all the tiles with rivers with River terrain, and remove the rivers). In other civ1 oddities, it seems that roads/rail should be buildable asea (#7 from http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/faq/civfaq5.php), providing trade/production bonuses, but not movement nativity. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22296 ___ 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 #22297] Road move_time = -1 doesn't get to client correctly
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?22297 Summary: Road move_time = -1 doesn't get to client correctly Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Wed 09 Jul 2014 04:13:03 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: 2.6.0 ___ Details: If I apply the fix for bug #22290, the client says * Movement cost along River is 85 MP. UINT8 move_cost in packets.def isn't going to be helping, but I don't know if that's the whole story. I'm a bit surprised the packet marshalling diagnostics don't seem to be triggering. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?22297 ___ 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 #3405] Help: update for generalised roads, bases, etc
Update of patch #3405 (project freeciv): Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = jtn Planned Release: 2.5.0 = 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3405 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
