[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3313] Nets to experimental ruleset

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3313 (project freeciv):

>New base type Nets, buildable on Oceanic tiles after Seafaring >discovered,
required in tile before Harbor gives food bonus
I like the idea.
I find the bonus from harbours and offshore plataforms very powerful, imo it
is better if you have to improve the tiles one by one as you suggest, like the
farmlands. It would also make workers useful at islands.
I'll test this idea with civ2civ3 ruleset, where AI hardly build harbours or
farmlands anyway.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3313] Nets to experimental ruleset

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3313 (project freeciv):

An alternative could be to require these net bases only in ocean tiles with
special resources (fish and wales), so it does not afect the AI so much.

In my ruleset I also made bouys needed in deep ocean tiles to get the extra
shield from Offshore platafomrms.
And I gave extra trade from Highways only at tiles without farmland (to
compensate AI does not build them).

This way those improvement are not so powerful for human players and they do
not harm ao much the AI.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3366] Include civ2civ3 ruleset

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3366 (project freeciv):

Thank you cazfi.

I was also unsure about the name. I'd like it to include somehow the name
"civ3" because people who played civ3 are going to find the gameplay with this
ruleset very similar.
The ruleset seems also similar to c-evo, a civ clone that I recently
discovered.

The main objective was to create a ruleset where there are no so big
disadvantage if you do not play optimally. This way, rookies, AIs, and
experienced players, are more even to each other, and it is more likely to get
a balanced game, either single- or multi- player.
I think new comers that do not enjoy freeciv because they find the AI too
hard, they could enjoy this ruleset. And at the same time, I believe AI can
play this ruleset good enough to be a challenge for experienced players
(mostly tested over freeciv v2.3).

I tried to keep updated the help texts, but my english is not good, I'd thank
if some english speaker could revise them.
The README tries to be a comprehensive list of every change, compared to
default ruleset.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

I think the problem is deeper than that.
I have played peaceful games in v2.3, where AI never enter war (tested by
increasing "AI love"), and soon they stop building settlers to start building
workers and other city improvements.

I thought the problem could be that AI considers settlers better than workers
for terrain improvement. However, I have tried to reduce the cost of the
workers, to increase the cost of the settlers, to change the food and upkeep
costs, but AI just keep building settlers in v2.4.
For example: in my latest game with civ2civ3 over v2.4: turn 220, certain AI
nation has 14 cities, 52 settlers, 0 workers, and 9 cities are building new
settlers. This never happens with same rules over v2.3.

Tell me if I can test something to help find the cause, because this problem
is affecting too much the playability of civ2civ3 mod. I'll try to upload some
savegames anyway.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

Still faster than me... good job!

I'm trying to test this fix. I have compiled the TRUNK rev-21480, run a server
(./fcser -r data/civ2civ3.serv ) and run a client (./fcgui).
When I press end turn I get this error: "in tdc_plr_set() [aisettler.c::533]:
assertion 'ai->settler->tdc_hash != ((void *)0)' failed."

I'm not sure if the error is related to to this patch, or it is my fault while
compiling and running it. I'll keep trying.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

You are right, the error appears with and without your patch, when I end the
first turn, playing civ2civ3 rules, everytime.
The error does not appear when I play default (classic) rules.


I upload the requested savegames with v2.3 where AI stops building settlers,
even being at peace with rest of nations, in case it is still useful to
compare the new patch.

Used civ2civ3 version downloaded from modpack-tool. Both savegames where
played in AI mode, observing the Indians:

1) turn 75, when Indians start to build workers and other improvements. Most
cities where building settlers until now.
2) turn 80, most cities (9/11) have switched to build workers, barracks or
triremes.

I never see AI switching from settlers to workers in my tests with v2.4. I'll
test with your patch if I can.


(file #16060, file #16061)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3_v2.3.2b_settlers-T0075.sav.bz2 Size:56 KB
File name: civ2civ3_v2.3.2b_settlers-T0080.sav.bz2 Size:59 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

I used to run the compiled trunk in ubuntu with command:
>./civ # Run client

Now it does not work, so I use ./fcser in one terminal, then ./fcgui in
another terminal, and then I press "connect to Netwok Game".

I have been unable to install (with "make install") the compiled code. I'm not
sure if there is other simpler way to test the trunk...?

If I'm doing it right, then there is an error that appears everytime I press
end turn while playing the civ2civ3 ruleset.
I upload the log file generated when I execute:
>./fcser -r data/civ2civ3.serv --debug 3 -l log.txt



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

The log.txt again... this time inside .zip

(file #16062)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-settler-log.txt.zip   Size:85 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19925] 'ai->settler->tdc_hash != ((void *)0)' failed.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19925 (project freeciv):

It seems the error does not appear with default, civ2, nor experimental
rulesets. Only affects to civ2civ3 modpack.
The lastest revision I tested where there was no error is the windows crosser
build r21402. Civ2Civ3 was added in r21460, where the error does happen.

I'm checking my modpack for bugs that could be triggering this error. Anyway,
I guess it must be related to some change to ai code between r21402 and
r21460.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19925] 'ai->settler->tdc_hash != ((void *)0)' failed.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #19925 (project freeciv):

Ok, this is really weird, but I'm pretty sure I tested it properly... (with
trunk r21520)

When I copy the files from "Civ2Civ3" folder into "Classic" folder (replacing
them), then I can play civ2civ3 rules without the assertion error, no matter
if I use the default.serv or the civ2civ3.serv.

I would thank confirmation of this error:
1- Compile trunk r21520
2- run server: ./fcser -r data/civ2civ3.serv
3- run client: ./fcgui
4- Connect to network game and end turn
-- assertion error here --

5- Copy files from "Civ2Civ3" folder to "Classic"
6- Repeat 1 to 4 to verify there is no assertion error this time

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19899] AI builds unneeded settlers in late game

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #19899 (project freeciv):

I confirm this patch fixes the wrong AI behavior that I reported.
Thank you very much.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19933] civ2civ3 ruleset missing irrigation

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 ruleset missing irrigation
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: vie 13 jul 2012 03:44:43 GMT
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: 

___

Details:

I forgot to add to effects.ruleset the effects "Irrig_Possible" and
"City_Image". 

I used to send to cazfi my changes to this ruleset. Since civ2civ3 was added
to the repository, I'll try to upload here the fixes for the bugs I find.
This is the first time I upload a patch here, I hope it is ok.

Note this patch does not fix the bug reported here: bug #19925





___

File Attachments:


---
Date: vie 13 jul 2012 03:44:43 GMT  Name:
civ2civ3-Irrigation-CityImage_21520.diff  Size: 1kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19925] 'ai->settler->tdc_hash != ((void *)0)' failed.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #19925 (project freeciv):

ah, ok, then it seems something related to my installation.
When I try to build with --enable-debug, I get this error:


...
luascript_signal.c: In function ‘luascript_signal_create_valist’:
luascript_signal.c:232: warning: passing argument 2 of
‘luascript_signal_name_list_append’ discards qualifiers from pointer
target type
make[5]: *** [luascript_signal.lo] Error 1
make[5]: se sale del directorio
`/media/disk-1/Juegos/Freeciv/common/scriptcore'
make[4]: *** [all] Error 2
make[4]: se sale del directorio
`/media/disk-1/Juegos/Freeciv/common/scriptcore'
make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: se sale del directorio `/media/disk-1/Juegos/Freeciv/common'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: se sale del directorio `/media/disk-1/Juegos/Freeciv/common'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: se sale del directorio `/media/disk-1/Juegos/Freeciv'
make: *** [all] Error 2


I use an outdated ubuntu version 9.04 placed in external usb, that I can't
update due to sort space in disk... this might be the reason of some of my
problems.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19946] "Déjà vu" unit movement animation in client

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19946 (project freeciv):

I have also seen it for long time, I hope someone can fix it.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19977] Range of trademindist 1-999 is too big for network packet format (UINT8)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #19977 (project freeciv):

The intention by using this high number was, as cazfi said, to dissable
national trade routes while keeping inter-national routes enabled.

In civ2civ3 it is harder to produce trade than in default rules, and national
trade routes would be overpowered. I kept international routes because they
give a similar bonus both to the creator and to the target nation, and because
human players can use them to speed up the game at small maps.
If it causes troubles, I suggest to remove completely the trade routes in this
ruleset, as they did in Longturn.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20029] Cimpletoon missing civ2civ3 units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20029 (project freeciv):

I have seen a custom icon for migrants in other rulesets (named u.refugee as
you say), for example the ones used in Longturn, and that is the main reason I
included them in civ2civ3.
About Geoengineers, I don't think it is worth to create a new icon/graphic.
They are equal to engineers, but with terrain transformations enabled.

I think it is important for civ2civ3 rules to keep these major transformations
disabled until the end of the technology tree. However, this "Geoengineer"
unit would not be needed if it were possible to dissable the major terrain
Transformations until certain tech is researched.
Do you know any alternative way (other than to create a new unit with flag
"Transform"), or do you think it could be easy to implement such feature (in a
similar way than you did with irrigations)?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20030] Amplio2 missing Geoengineer gfx

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20030 (project freeciv):

Related to bug #20029

The only other missing gfx in civ2civ3, that I know, are the 3 new wonders:
Temple of Artemis, Statue of Zeus and Mausoleum of Mausolos. All them
currently using The Oracle icon.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: vie 10 ago 2012 02:03:47 GMT
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:

I have updated the modpack civ2civ3 for v2.4.
The attached modpack is supposed to be ready to replace the previous v2.4-1.

However, in a couple of tests with S2_4 rev21764, the game have ended with
this error:


1: in unit_transport_unload() [unit.c::2072]: assertion
'same_pos(unit_tile(pcargo), unit_tile(ptrans))' failed.
1: Please report this message at http://gna.org/projects/freeciv/
1: in unit_virtual_destroy() [unit.c::1724]: assertion
'unit_list_size(punit->transporting) == 0' failed.
1: Please report this message at http://gna.org/projects/freeciv/


Attached savegame at the turn just before the error happens.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: vie 10 ago 2012 02:03:47 GMT  Name: civ2civ3_v2.4.zip  Size: 64kB   By:
bardo


---
Date: vie 10 ago 2012 02:03:47 GMT  Name: freeciv-T0079-Y-0525-auto.sav.gz 
Size: 181kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20045 (project freeciv):

>Are these the settings you used?
Yes, with those settings my games always end crashing around turn 100 to 150.
Actually, the savegame I uploaded always crashes to me when I end the turn.

It is an autosave from a game that I was playing under AI control, with "/set
timeout 10" and I did not change the settings before saving, sorry.
I wonder if the time limit could be affecting the AI? Is there any other way
to play the game under AI contol?

If this savegame does not crash to you after the end of turn,
I'd assume there is some issue in my installation or the way I compile the
code that is causing these "assertion errors", like the latest one I
reported.

I have revised the files of this updated civ2civ3 pack and I did not change
anything related to transports or unit types. If it does not crash to you, I'd
say the pack is ready to replace the previous version.

I'll test it again as soon as there is a version of the next beta that I do
not need to compile... to be sure.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #20045 (project freeciv):

I'm still curious to know the reason of this error, even if it only happens to
me. Else I'm not going to be able to test any freeciv version until there is a
window installer.

I have successfully installed the new v2.4 beta1 over ubuntu 9.04 (with make
install), I have installed the new civ2civ3 v2.4-2 (with freeciv-modpack), and
I still get the same "assertion" error in every game.

The error keeps appearing when I launch the installed "freeciv-gtk2", so it is
not related to the script "fcgui".
I have never seen this error with default rules, only with civ2civ3. It
happens when I use freeciv-modpack to install the mod, when I manually copy
the files to data folder, and also when I overwrite the default ruleset
files.
(this last method used to solve the problem with the other assertion error
that I reported bug #19925).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #20045 (project freeciv):

Right, it is client side error... Sorry I didn't realize it.

>- Minplayers setting set to 0 (I'm still curios of how you started the all-ai
game when minplayers setting was not 0 - had you first human player that was
then turned to ai?)
Yes, I start with human, then I turn to ai, and then I set timeout.
It is the only way I have found since timeout = -1 does not work for me and
the code does not compile for me when I try "./autogen.sh --enable-debug"

I must say I have not been able to reproduce the error with the previous
version of the mod v2.4-1, so it seems someway related to my latest changes
for v2.4-2.

I'm glad you catched the same error. Thanks for the help, I'll keep testing.



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20057] Error when trying to compile with --enable-debug

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Error when trying to compile with --enable-debug
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: dom 12 ago 2012 17:30:08 GMT
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: GNU/Linux
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

When I try to compile the code with debug enabled (I have tested svn trunk and
also S2_4 beta), I get this compilation error:


...
luascript_signal.lo
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
luascript_signal.c: In function ‘luascript_signal_create_valist’:
luascript_signal.c:232: warning: passing argument 2 of
‘luascript_signal_name_list_append’ discards qualifiers from pointer
target type
make[5]: *** [luascript_signal.lo] Error 1


I'm using ubuntu 9.04 that I can no longer update, I guess this could be the
reason.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #20045 (project freeciv):

>Can you test if this asserts for you?
When I launch your .serv (that includes set timeout -1), it seems to work even
without "debug enabled", and I do get the assertion error in the client. 

>You could start server with "-d 3" and read output after >"rulesetdir
civ2civ3" carefully to see that every file is read >from correct path.
Good point. It seems to load the right files from correct paths. The lua
scripts and the nations are taken from default rules, I never know if I should
include those unmoded files in my packs.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: lun 13 ago 2012 16:07:26 GMT
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:

For long time I have noticed the AI does not set the tax rates properly.
I have seen AIs that set a percentage to luxuries when there are no unhappy
people and there is no chance to celebrate, and I have seen many times the AI
losing buildings due to low funds when it was possible to increase the gold
taxes and so avoid the banckrupt.
At first I thought the wrong behavior was related to units supported by gold
(I have reported it in other tickets), but I have revised the related AI code
and I think I have found a possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c):


/* First set tax (gold) to the minimal available number */
  rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = maxrate; /* Assume we want science here */
  rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MAX(0, 100 - maxrate * 2); /* If maxrate < 50% */
  rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = (100 - rates[AI_RATE_SCI] - rates[AI_RATE_TAX]);


I can't understand the reason why maxrate is multiplied by 2 in:
>rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MAX(0, 100 - maxrate * 2)
And such bug would cause the often AI behavior that I see where AI sets taxes
to 60% science, 0% gold and 40% luxuries at start.

When I "fix" it and I recompile, I find the tax rates are set by the AI in a
more reasonable way (with no useless luxuries), but AI still seems unable to
handle low of funds situations.

I'm new to freeciv code and I'm not sure if I really fixed something, or I
introduced an error that looks like an improvement. I'll try to upload some
savegame in case some coder can take a look. 



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: lun 13 ago 2012 16:07:26 GMT  Name: AItaxRates.diff  Size: 940B   By:
bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20062 (project freeciv):

Oh, my fault, this was not the bug.

I still think there is a bug somewhere in this function and I'll keep
searching, but you could remove this ticket for now.
Sorry.



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20062 (project freeciv):

Let me another guess... this time I'm almost sure it is a bug, now I think I
fully understand the related code.

In function "ai_manage_taxes",
the variable "rate_sci_balance" keeps a non valid value = -1 if
"game.info.tech_upkeep_style == 0" (default value in most rulesets).
When it comes the time to "Set the rates", the code assumes that such value
"rate_sci_balance = -1" means that AI will lose bulbs (due to tech upkeep)
even with taxes maxed to science.
When "rate_tax_balance = -1" it means that AI will lose money (due to upkeep
costs) even with taxes maxed to gold.
When both values are -1, it prioritizes to maximize the science over the
gold:

  } else {
/* Go for science and risk the loss of improvements or units. */
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MAX(maxrate, rate_sci_min);
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, RATE_REMAINS(rates));


As I see it, in every ruleset where tech upkeep is dissabled, if AI is losing
money, and if switching taxes to maximize gold does not get a positive income,
then the AI maximizes the science (instead of gold), making the situation even
worse for next turn...

I'm still trying to catch a clear savegame, but it is not so easy.

Forget the 1st AItaxRates.diff (I wish I could remove it), I have uploaded
this new fix to a new file: FixTaxRates2.diff

(file #16389)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: FixAITaxRates2.diffSize:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #20062 (project freeciv):

I catched a savegame, played with civ2civ3 rules over v2.4 beta1, where
English nation loses buildings/units due to low funds, and the AI keeps taxes
to 60% science and 40% gold.
aihand.c code seems designed so AI sets the taxes to 90% gold in this case
(under Democracy max tax rates are 90% with this rules).

Saddly, the AI keeps the same wrong behavior when I apply my patch, and it is
the same no matter if I enable or dissable the tech upkeep (my "fix" does
nothing...)

To reproduce the "bug":
1- Freeciv 2.4 beta1 + modpack civ2civ3
2- load savegame, start game with English, switch to AI control (normal
difficulty), and then "/set timeout 10" (or -1).
3- The AI loses buildings/units during 2 more turns, and it keeps taxes to 60%
science.
Note I saved the game after several turns watching the AI losing money while
keeping the taxes to 60% science.

I see this behavior often with civ2civ3 rules where it is harder to earn
trade/gold, but I don't know if the same happens with default rules.

(file #16390)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3_v2.4-2-TaxRates-T0165.sav.gz Size:184 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

I'm trying to implement this idea, it simply needs one extra line at the end
of tech_upkeep_calc() to multiply by number of cities owned by the player.
Could some coder please tell where can I get this value?


  tech_bulb_sum *= get_player_bonus(pplayer, EFT_TECH_COST_FACTOR);
  tech_bulb_sum *= (double)game.info.sciencebox / 100.0;
  tech_bulb_sum /= game.info.tech_upkeep_divider;
  tech_bulb_sum -= get_player_bonus(pplayer, EFT_TECH_UPKEEP_FREE);

  /*tech_bulb_sum *= ¿¿number of cities owned by player??*/


Syntron, if you are around, please tell what do you think?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20063] wrong tech upkeep when tech_cost_style = 2 or 4

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: wrong tech upkeep when tech_cost_style = 2 or 4
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 14 ago 2012 01:46:04 GMT
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:

Possible bug in file tech.c.

It says:
>tech_bulb_sum = advances[i].preset_cost;

where it should say:
>tech_bulb_sum += advances[i].preset_cost;

When tech_cost_style is 2 or 4, the bug causes a reduced tech upkeep that take
into account only one tech instead of the whole tree.

If someone fixes this bug, please remember also to dissable the tech upkeep in
the modpack civ2civ3, else the upkeep is going to be 100 times greater than it
was designed.
I attach a .diff with both fixes.




___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 14 ago 2012 01:46:04 GMT  Name: FixTechUpkeep-Fixciv2civ3.diff 
Size: 968B   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

I attach a patch to add this feature.

Old formula was
>tech_upkeep =  / tech_upkeep_divider -
Tech_Upkeep_Free

My suggested formula is:
>tech_upkeep =  / tech_upkeep_divider * ( 1 +
number_of_cities / Tech_Upkeep_Free)

Here, the effect Tech_Upkeep_Free delimits the increment in the number of
cities that causes an increment in the upkeep cost.
If Tech_Upkeep_Free >= 1, then the upkeep cost is multiplied by the number of
cities (divided by Tech_Upkeep_Free).
If Tech_Upkeep_Free <= 0, then we force the same behavior than the old
formula.

If some coder is interested to introduce this change, we are going to need to
update the description of the effect Tech_Upkeep_Free, and the hardest part:
to modify every file game.ruleset to include the new formula for
tech_upkeep_style.
Also to adapt the rulesets currently using it: experimental and civ2civ3 (I
can do that).

(file #16394)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: NewTechUpkeep.diff Size:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #20062 (project freeciv):

I finally catched a savegame with default rules where the AI loses a building
due to low funds, while keeping the taxes to 70% science.

To recreate:
1- beta1 v2.4 with default rules, load savegame and start (Apaches)
3- /aitoggle
4- /set timeout 10
The next turn the AI will lose a granary due to negative gold balance.

I was watching this game in AI mode, and several turns before this one the AI
starts to lose money and it keeps the taxes to 70% (max under monarchy)
instead of switching to 70% gold, as the aihand.c file is supposed to be
designed.

I really believe this is currently the most important issue related to AI
behavior that I have seen in these years playing freeciv. I hope this savegame
helps to find the problem, I don't know what else I can do, at least until I
can compile the code with debug enabled.

I still think my patch "FixAITaxRates2.diff" (forget the one in my first post)
should improve this behavior, even if it does not seem to fix it completely.

(file #16397)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: default_v2.4beta1-unbalancedTaxAI-T0215.sav.bz2 Size:77 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20062] Possible bug in ai_manage_taxes (aihand.c)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #20062 (project freeciv):

Good point, then my "fix" may not be an improvement.

But the code still looks buggy to me and should be fixed one way or the
other.
Currently, in the same situation (with no tech upkeep), the AI could act
different if tech_upkeep_style == 1 (where "rate_sci_balance" is going to be
0), than if tech_upkeep_style == 0 (where "rate_sci_balance" is going to be
-1)

In the first case (0), if the AI estimates a negative income even with taxes
maxed to gold, then the AI keeps max taxes to gold.
In the 2nd case (-1), if the AI estimates a negative income even with taxes
maxed to gold, then the AI switches to maximize science.

I simply fixed it to be 0 in both cases. The other solution does not really
fit the current code, it would be too non-linear behavior, where AI increases
the taxes to balance the income, and when taxes can not be increased more due
to max rates, the AI suddently maximizes the science.
I'd suggest in that case to maximize the gold, but keeping a minimum of 10% to
science. I have already noticed how important it is to avoid the AI gets stuck
at 100% taxes, and just a 10% to science could make the difference.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20057] Error when trying to compile with --enable-debug

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #20057 (project freeciv):

Your patch fixes the reported error, thank you. But now I get a different
error:

trunk:

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
map.c: In function ‘startpos_iter_init’:
map.c:1608: warning: type-punning to incomplete type might break
strict-aliasing rules
make[4]: *** [map.lo] Error 1


S_4:

cc1: warnings being treated as errors
map.c: In function ‘startpos_iter_init’:
map.c:1558: warning: type-punning to incomplete type might break
strict-aliasing rules
make[4]: *** [map.lo] Error 1


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20045] assertion failed with civ2civ3 over S2_4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #14, bug #20045 (project freeciv):

I'm afraid it keeps failing with the same error. I tested S_4 r21843 that
includes the mentioned patch.
The error appears when I reload the savegame posted here, and also when I
start a new clean game.


1: in unit_virtual_destroy() [unit.c::1715]: assertion
'!unit_transported(punit)' failed.



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3545] Max_Trade_Routes for civ2civ3 ruleset

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3545 (project freeciv):

Thank you for keep updating the civ2civ3 ruleset.

I'm sort of time now to play freeciv, but I plan to come back before the next
release, to check the latest changes and test this ruleset again.

Send me a mail if you think I can help with something.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20063] wrong tech upkeep when tech_cost_style = 2 or 4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #20063 (project freeciv):

I'd thank if you could disable the tech upkeep in both versions of the modpack
(2.3 and 2.4).

The current LT31 game is using civ2-3 rules. I was waiting for some more
feedback to create a new patch for v2.3.3 (or 2.3.4).
Then I'd like to test v2.4 again and to try to update the modpack with the
latest fixes or the new rules.
I have not rebalanced the tech upkeep yet, but I plan to do it.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20063] wrong tech upkeep when tech_cost_style = 2 or 4

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #20063 (project freeciv):

Thank you.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20879] Units supported by food killed due to starvation even when free of upkeep

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Units supported by food killed due to starvation
even when free of upkeep
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: dom 09 jun 2013 10:32:16 GMT
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:

When a city is short of food (empty foodbox and negative growth), if there is
a unit supported by food, then the unit is killed instead of reducing the pop
size of the city.
The bug is that units supported by food are killed due to starvation even when
they are free of food upkeep.

It doesn't happen with default rules because the effect
"Unit_Upkeep_Free_Per_City" is never used with food.

I attach savegame with civ2-3 ruleset, using v2.3.4, where every military unit
needs food upkeep, but there are free units related to the size of the city.

If you press end turn, one unit with food upkeep is destroyed, as expected,
but if you keep pressing end turn, the rest of units will be destroyed, one
per turn, even when they no longer require food (no food upkeep icon in city
view).



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: dom 09 jun 2013 10:32:16 GMT  Name: civ2-3_v2.3.4_foodupkeep.sav.bz2 
Size: 14kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20880] Civil war triggered without capital being conquered

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Civil war triggered without capital being conquered
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: dom 09 jun 2013 10:50:19 GMT
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:

In the latest multiplayer longturn game (LT31) it was reported that one player
went to civil war even when the capital was not conquered.
(playing with Freeciv 2.3.2 and a variation of ruleset civ2-3).

I post the report made by jhh, in case someone here knows what happened.


>I (Japan) got civil war (the first time) after det0r apparently >conquered
two of my cities, which were near my capital, but NOT >my capital.
>
>Actually I DID loose my capital, but it happened AFTER the >civil war split
the nations -- Ryukyuans got that city which >was my old capital, and my
Palace was rebuilt when that >happened.
>
>There wasn't much in the event log. I saw det0r killing few of >my troops and
then I loose control of few cities and then it's >civil war. 
>
>Here's the event log:

[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:57:57) You have made contact with the Maori, ruled by
Det0r.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:57:59) Warriors lost to an attack by the Maori
Musketeers.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:03) Warriors lost to an attack by the Maori
Musketeers.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:07) Det0r conquered Osaka.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:48) Warriors lost to an attack by the Maori
Musketeers.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Det0r conquered Nara.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Workers lost along with control of Nara.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Workers lost along with control of Nara.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Workers lost along with control of Nara.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Swordsmen lost along with control of Nara.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) A replacement Palace was built in Saitama.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Player 'Sho En' now has AI skill level 'Easy'.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Your nation is thrust into civil war.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Sho En is the rebellious leader of the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Himeji declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Okayama declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Kagoshima declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Sakai declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Kanazawa declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) You have made contact with the Ryukyuans, ruled by
Sho En.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) *Sho En (AI)* Greetings Jhh! May we suggest a
ceasefire while we get to know each other better?
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Niigata declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Nagano declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Yokohama declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Hiroshima declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Fukuoka declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Nagoya declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Sapporo declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Tokyo declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Kyoto declares allegiance to the Ryukyuans.
[23:20:03] (T86 - 23:58:55) Civil war partitions the Japanese; the Ryukyuans
now hold 14 cities.

>One possibility occured to me... if there was that soldier in >the capital
when 'Swordsmen lost along with control of Nara', >could that trigger the
civil war?
>
>And FYI, Tokyo was my capital.







___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20879] Units supported by food killed due to starvation even when free of upkeep

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20879 (project freeciv):

Right, that is what I meant. I didn't see the patch, I'm glad it is fixed.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3940] civ2civ3 ruleset update

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 ruleset update
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: vie 14 jun 2013 12:28:27 GMT
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

The changes are based on the comments of longturn players after they used this
ruleset in lastest game LT31.

The main complains were:
- happiness too hard to handle at large empires.
- bombers and missile units too weak.
- monarchy and communism seems clearly better than republic and democracy for
conquest games.



List of changes in this update:
- Doubled the empire size for all governments. Federation available with tech
Economics (instead of Democracy).

- Republic uses standard upkeep of units again: 1 shield per unit. Increased
free units under Democracy/Federation.

- A city can support twice as many units with gold upkeep as its population
size (aditional units cause waste of food).

- Max 3 units can apply Martial Law (was max 20 for Despotism and Anarchy).

- Barracks available without any techs again. Warriors become obsolete by
Musketeers instead of Pikemen.

- Super Highways require Stock Exchange to get the bonus +50% to
Gold/Luxuries.



- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again, but do not take advantage
of terrain defense bonuses. They can move to fortress even if not roaded.

- Units with CityBuster (artillery and missile) bypass the bonus to defense
from fortress. Howitzer movement reduced to 1.

- Increased damage caused by Bombardment. Cruise Missile no longer cause
unhappiness, and increased range. AEGIS protect against fighters, bombers and
missiles again.

- Removed bonuses to movement in river. Triremes can navigate rivers again.



I have already updated the version 2.3 and 2.4 of this ruleset with these
changes (soon available with modpack tool), I'd thank if you could update the
trunk with this patch so all versions share the same rules.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: vie 14 jun 2013 12:28:27 GMT  Name: civ2civ3_update4.diff  Size: 54kB  
By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3941] Building obsolescense requirement vector

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3941 (project freeciv):

I was interested to make Great wonders obsolete by techs with range "Player"
(instead of default "World"). I guess it will possible with this patch, thank
you.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3960] Remove multiplication by 3 from base_assess_defense_unit()

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3960 (project freeciv):

Is this x3 defense also taken into account when the AI evaluates whether to
attack a city?
The other day I saw with a diplomat 40 cavalry units in an enemy city that
were in range to attack my city defended by 3 riflemen (with walls in plains),
and I know such attack would have conquered my city for sure (with 6 cavalry
casualties or so), but they never attacked. It was "cheating" AI level so I
guess they knew my defending units, doesn't it?
I wondered why AI decided it was not good idea to attack.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20945] If Occupychance=100, units waste 2 movement points per attack

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: If Occupychance=100, units waste 2 movement points
per attack
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: jue 04 jul 2013 16:38:04 GMT
Category: rulesets
Severity: 1 - Wish
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

If the military option Occupychance is set to 100%, the attacking unit is
automatically moved to the target tile, but the movement of the unit is
reduced twice: one movement point due to the attack and another one due to the
movement.
The result is that cavalry units can not attack twice, nor they can keep
moving after attacking, so they are nerfed compared to infantry.
Also, it gives an advantage to units that can not move to target tile due to
ZOC, because they waste only one movement point per attack, while units with
igZOC waste 2 movement in one single attack.
Forcing the units to move to the attacked tile is already a disadvantage, I
find it important for balance that it does not cost extra movement points.

I would ask to change the behavior so attack+movement requires only one
movement point, same than attack without movement.








___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20945] If Occupychance=100, units waste 2 movement points per attack

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20945 (project freeciv):

I agree, what you describe is exactly how it works in civ3.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3871] Control airlift nativity with EFT_AIRLIFT

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3871 (project freeciv):

I'm interested to see this feature implemented, in case you still working on
it.
Would it be simpler if you create a new unit flag in units.ruleset to define
which units can be airlifted? (without changing the ruleset effects)


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

This new tech upkeep style would be very useful for the ruleset civ2civ3 that
will be included with v2.5.
Cazfi, if you are around, do you think it would be possible to include this
new style in future versions, please?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 29 oct 2013 11:25:47 GMT
Category: rulesets
Severity: 1 - Wish
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

After some time playing other wargames, and reading about civ5 combat system,
I figured out a simple rule that would make more tactical the combat in
freeciv.

The rule would be:
" When a unit is placed adjacent to an enemy unit, it receives a penalty to
attack against other enemy units. "

Such rule would take advantage of the already implemented Zone of Control
system and I think it could be easy to implement, though I'm not sure.

With the current rules, I think the zone of control does not really affect the
military tactics since it can be easely bypassed by using one single explorer
or diplomat. And I always found it odd that you can attack an enemy unit
placed in a tile that the ZoC rules do not allow you to move to.
This weird effect becomes more evident when I enable the rule "occupy chance =
100%" (where units are forced to move to the target tile after a succesfully
attack). With "occupychance=100", in some cases units can destroy the enemy
without moving to the target tile, due to the ZoC.
My suggested rule would affect only those cases where the unit is already
adjacent to an enemy and tries to attack another adjacent enemy, and it should
not affect the attack against cities or fortresses.

In my opinion, the result of this rule would be:
- when you move your units in open field (out of cities or fortress), you can
create a front of defensive units, and to force the enemy to attack your
flancks first, in order to avoid this new "ZoC penalty to attack".
- it makes it easier to protect vulnerable units in open field without the
need of fortress or mountains or stacking. If you advance with your artillery
in the center of a squared formation (9 tiles), the enemy must destroy 4 of
the surrounding units before they can attack the center tile without
penalties.
- it would be easier to survive for units surrounding a city. The sieged units
placed inside the city would get this "ZoC penalty to attack" against all the
surrounding units except the last one.
- it would encourage to create different army compositions and different
advancing formations to adapt to the terrain.

This rule would be someway related to this request: bug #20945




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21239 (project freeciv):

A similar rule easier to implement would be:
"do not allow to attack a tile where the unit can not move due to ZoC effect"
This way the limitation caused by ZoC would be the same for movement and
attack. 

I personally prefer a customizable penalty to attack, but this one would also
allow interesting tactics to protect your units, that I find very realistic,
specially if ZoC is enabled for Naval units too.

I'll see if I can create a patch for this one by myself, but I'd prefer to
find some developer who find this rule interesting.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21239 (project freeciv):

There is a mistake in previous post... sorry.
It must be possible to attack, but with a penalty. I'd rewrite it to:

"When a unit attacks a tile where it can not move due to ZoC effect, the
defender gets a bonus to defense (for example +100%)"


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21239 (project freeciv):

I did not explain properly the first verion. I'll use your question about the
surrounded warrior to try to clarify both versions.

version 1)Penalty when a unit adjacent to an enemy unit attacks any other
tile.

version 2) Penalty when a unit adjacent to an enemy unit attacks another tile
adjacent to an enemy unit.

The first attack of a surrounded warrior will always be penalized in both
versions.

In v1, if the warrior kills 7 of the surrounding enemies, he can attack the
8th enemy without penalty because there is no other enemy adjacent. All
attacks would be penalized except the last one.

In v2, if the warrior kills the 4 enemies in the corners (or the 4 in the
cross), he can attack to the other 4 enemies without penalties because the
target tile would not be adjacent to another enemy.

Version2 uses exactly the same rules than ZoC and I guess it would be easier
to implement.
I'm glad you like it, because I think freeciv really needs some kind of
tactical rule. I was working on a WW2 scenario and I realized that battles
without research/building are plain boring. You just need to stack pile all
your units in a fortress over the best defensive position and attack other
locations from there.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21239 (project freeciv):

Attached image with visual example.

Green line: normal attack
Red line: ZoC penalized attack
Blue line: varies from v1 to v2 (isolated unit always attacked without penalty
in v2)

I do not know how this rule would affect the AI, but it already likes to send
waves of units that will be more effective with this optional rule than with
current rules.

(file #19294)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: ZoC_Penalty.jpgSize:154 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21239] Optional rule: Penalty to attack due to ZoC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #21239 (project freeciv):

Good points.

An important part of this rule, as I said in first post, would be that this
penalty does not affect attacks against cities or fortresses (or any other
tile with no stack death).
The idea is that units moving together protect each other and do not need
fortresses nor stacking to advance in enemy territory.

As I see it, with default rules, humans do not create fronts of units in open
field because it is much better to stack them in cities or fortress. The only
available strategy to advance in enemy territory is to move your best
defensive unit to the best defensive terrain, or to build fortresses. 
My suggestion tries to make these waves of units a valid tactic, as we see in
most wargames.

In civ5 it is not allowed to stack units, and units get a defensive bonus if
there are friendly units in adjacent tiles, similar to my suggestion. In civ5
there are also bonus to attack if the enemy is surrounded by allied units, but
I think only one of those bonuses is needed to simlute the importance of
breaking the enemy front line, as we see in WW2 battles.

In my opinion this rule will not affect the way you defend your cities (units
stacked in cities and fortress still the best choice), but the way you attack
the enemy cities.
Together with the rules "restrictinfra", "no unreachableprotects" and
"occupychance=100" I think freeciv could become a fun tactical game.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21242] AI does not build spaceship on classic ruleset

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21242 (project freeciv):

From my tests with v2.3, the AI builds spaceship components if the
requeriments are already in the city, but AI does not seem to build those
requeriments with the only purpose of launching the spaceship.
In my ruleset the requirements to build spaceships are factories, mfg.plants
and research labs, and I have seen the AI winning the game by space race,
playing v2.3. But it only uses to happen when the AI is at peace with everyone
else and it has cities good enough to build mfg.plants and research labs by
themselfs before the space race starts.
I have noticed that AI at war rarely build non military improvements in their
cities, and so they never build a spaceship.

I suggest you to test autogames with high values of "AI love" to verify if
peaceful AI does launch spaceship in later versions. For example:

[effect_ai_love]
name= "Gain_AI_Love"
value   = 50

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21320] AI do not adjust taxes to avoid losing buildings or units due to low funds

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: AI do not adjust taxes to avoid losing buildings or
units due to low funds
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: lun 02 dic 2013 08:33:06 GMT
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:

In my opinion, this is the most important flaw of the AI since I started
testing it with v2.2, and it keeps being a problem in v2.4.1

I use the ruleset civ2civ3 for my tests, where the units are supported with
gold instead of shields under certain governments. 

I attach this ruleset, and a savegame where you can see the AI (koreans)
losing buildings and units almost every turn, while it keeps the taxes around
70% to science, when this AI could avoid the bankrupt by increasing the taxes
just a bit.
I'm not sure if the AI is blind to some gold expenses of this ruleset, or if
AI finds so important the research that it does not care the bankrupt.

This problem is not so evident with v2.3, but it also happens some times. I
have noticed the AI build less buildings and more units in v2.4, maybe that is
the reason why AI bankrupts are more often in this version.

To reproduce, load the savegame, toggle control of Koreans to the AI, set
timeout, and press end turn.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: lun 02 dic 2013 08:33:06 GMT  Name:
AI_bankrupt-2.4.1.civ2civ3.ruleset.zip  Size: 64kB   By: bardo


---
Date: lun 02 dic 2013 08:33:06 GMT  Name: AI_bankrupt-2.4.1.sav.bz2  Size:
101kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21320] AI do not adjust taxes to avoid losing buildings or units due to low funds

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21320 (project freeciv):

This bug is related to bug #20062, where I placed a savegame for default
ruleset and version 2.4beta1.

In that bug, I noticed that AI is coded to maximize the science when it can't
avoid the bankrupt by maximizing the taxes.

In this new savegame, the AI set the taxes to 40% (science to 60%), when the
max is 90% with this government, and it loses a library due to low funds, when
taxes to 70% (science to 30%) would avoid the bankrupt.
The AI neither maximizes the science nor avoids the bankrupt.

If you continue playing the savegame, you will see that AI loses buildings or
units almost every turn during the next hundreds of turns. Such behavior makes
this AI unplayable for me.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

I do not see it unrealistic if you think of tech upkeep as the bulbs needed to
keep the same technology level in every of your cities.

When you discover a primitive tribe, you automatically are allowed to build
your best units and buildings in that new primitive city, even when this city
does not produce any bulb nor has any library/university to keep this
knowledge.
As I see it, the more cities in your empire, the harder should be to keep the
same knowledge in all of them.

With my suggested tech style, if the tech upkeep is 5, it means that you waste
an average of 5 bulbs per city.
If you conquer a primitive city that produces 2 bulbs, then the rest of cities
must use part of their science resources (3 bulbs) to allow this new city to
take advantage of all the techs of your civilization.

I admit the main reason is the balance (I actully think the current tech
upkeep system is useless as a game rule), but I also think that my suggestion
would make the management of science resources a bit more realistic.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #19589 (project freeciv):


...The bulb production of a city would be used first to tech the known
technologies to their citizens (tech upkeep), and only the surplus will be
used to learn new technologies based on those techs (research).

In the current system, every city, no matter how primitive, can start
contributing to advanced projects like nuclear power. I see it more realistic
that a city without libraries/universities (or low trade) may be useless to
create new knowledge when the civilization is advanced (high tech upkeep). 

About the loss of a technology. As I see it, if your education system
(scientists, libraries, universities... ) is not good enough to educate
technicians/scientist that knows how to use this technology, then you can not
use it, even if the information is not totally lost. I think this is what use
to happen in real history.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #10, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

I have tested the patch over S2_5 and it seems to work as expected.
I noticed only one minor problem: when a new city is built or destroyed, the
tech upkeep value showed in the research window is not updated until the end
of turn.

Thank you very much for this patch, I hope it can be include in v2.5. I'll
keep testing the best way to add this new upkeep style to cv2civ3 ruleset.

___

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 #19589] New tech upkeep style

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #13, bug #19589 (project freeciv):

Testing S2_5 (rev 24279) with Tech upkeep = Cities, it sometimes appear the
error message:
>Trying to put -29 into 16 bits

being -29 (in this example) the bulbs produced per turn after taking the tech
upkeep into account.

The game continues normally, but I'm not sure if this error may affect the ai.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21559] mines over tundra (available in civ2civ3) not showed in map

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: mines over tundra (available in civ2civ3) not showed
in map
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mié 29 ene 2014 23:16:49 GMT
Category: art
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:

When a ruleset enables a tile improvement not available in classic ruleset (as
mines over tundra in civ2civ3), I do not find the way to select an existing
gfx to represent this new alteration. If not possible, I suggest to use the
mines over desert, and the irrigation over plains, as default gfx for every
non-defined terrain.

This is the only remaining missing gfx in civ2civ3, that I know, besides the
wonders reported in bug #20030.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21559] mines over tundra (available in civ2civ3) not showed in map

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21559 (project freeciv):

You are right, I tested it with S2_5.
I'm glad it is fixed in Trunk.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: vie 31 ene 2014 17:04:40 GMT
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

I updated the S2_5 version of civ2civ3 ruleset with the latest changes already
available with modpack-tool for v2.3 and 2.4.

I included some additional changes adapted to the new features and AI of 2.5.

If you agree to include this patch, I can try to create diff files for S2_5
and Trunk too.

List of changes:
- Enabled Tech Upkeep, and multiplied by number of Cities.
- If a city supports more Military Units than its population size, each extra
unit will waste one Food, no matter the government.
- Large cities (Pop>=8) no longer get extra units free of upkeep or military
unhappiness. The result is 1, 2, or 3 free units per city, depending on the
government.
- Disabled happyborders: Units cause military unhappiness if they end the turn
outside cities or fortresses, no matter if they are inside national borders.
- Readjusted effect of some wonders: Mausoleum of Mausolos, Statue of Liberty,
and those related to military unhappiness.
- Fixed Aqueducts (same as Barracks) to avoid duplicated bonuses when there
are two of them in the same ciy.
- Swapped Empire Size values for Fundamentalism (now 20) and Monarchy (now
12).
- Pollution may appear in ocean tiles. Transports can clean it without the
need of Workers\Engineers.
- Enabled random disasters, and readjusted effects. Plague renamed to Flood.
- No infinite movement: Railroads x6, Roads x3, Rivers x3 (non diagonal).
- Electricity allows Irrigation without adjacent water (as in civ3).
- Removed effect that prevented extra output from cities where Irrigation and
Mine were present at same time (no longer possible).

Units:
- Units automatically move to the target tile after a successful attack, and
land units can not continue moving after the attack (OneAttack).
- Every unit pays some kind of Upkeep cost. Units lose one veteran level when
upgraded.
- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again, but do not take advantage
of terrain defense bonuses. Wheeled units can move to fortress even if not
roaded. Fixed bug that kept them from entering Glacier tiles.
- Fortresses do not affect national borders, and do not protect against Air
units nor Missiles (they do protect against Land and See units, included those
with CityBuster). Airbases do protect against Air units (+100% defend bonus).
- Rebalanced ancient units. Reduced defense of Archers to 1 and cost to 20 (no
IgZoc). Reduced cost of Legion to 30. Increased attack of Chariot to 4, attack
of Elephant to 3, and defense of Knights to 3.
- Triremes can navigate rivers. Caravel changed from (2/1) to (1/2), and cost
restored to 40, in order to encourage peaceful exploration of the seas in the
age of discovery. Reduced attack of Frigate and defense of Ironclad to 3 (was
4), and restored default costs.
- Air units can perform pillage (representing bombardment of infrastructure).
Increased defense of all Air units, in order to discourage the use of land
units to protect them. Helicopters can only be attacked by Fighters (with no
extra attack bonuses).
- Diplomats and Spies are invisible like submarines, but they pay upkeep costs
like all other units.
- Cheating AI level gets +50% defense bonus for units placed in land tiles
outside cities\fortresses.




___

File Attachments:


---
Date: vie 31 ene 2014 17:04:40 GMT  Name: civ2civ3-S2_5-v6.zip  Size: 67kB  
By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

Hi Davide.

I already included in this patch your fix to research lab description. I'll
add the info about mfg plant for next patch.

It seems you are using for Greatturn-08 what we called v2.4-4, the same rules
present in this repository (for S2_5 and TRUNK).

Since dec-2013 there is an updated version available with modpack-tool called
v2.4-5, that includes some of the changes that I listed here, but no important
fixes, so I think you are save using v4 as base for your games.

I'll keep watching the progress of GT08 to get some more feedback. Thank you
very much for your job there.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

I understand what you say, and I'm here in part to learn the procedures you
use to develop freeciv. But it is hard for me to find the best way to
procedure when I have to work on so many versions of the ruleset, when only
the latest one is being versioned here:

-v2.3 is optimized to be played with an earth scenario that is not included
here in gnu due to author rights issues, so I share it in the forum.
-I also verify that my v2.3 is compatible with android app that is also not
versioned here. This app is still using freeciv 2.3.1 as base, that I know.
-Finally, I send you a pack periodically to be shared with modpack-tool, where
I do not want to continually break compatibility of people playing previous
versions of the rules, so I thought it'd be better to join my changes in big
packs, that I always test for balance.

-v2.4 is the current released freeciv, where civ2civ3 was not versioned, and I
have always released the same packs than v2.3 with the same rules, adapted to
the new features of 2.4.
-This version have been used online in Longturn games and currently in
Greatturn games too, with some modifications that I try to take into account
for my changes.

-Now that v2.5 is being versioned here, I would also like to develop it the
way you describe, but at same time I want to introduce all the changes that
were already tested in previous versions, and until now I have done it by
sharing a big .zip so you decide the best way to commit them to the
repository.
If you think it is better that I create little diff patches with single
logical changes in them, I can try it.

-Then there is the Trunk version that I have never tested, nor I have adapted
the ruleset for it, so I'm not aware of the changes or new features, and I did
not know the best way to introduce the changes from previous versions.

I guess the objective would be to introduce all the new changes in TRUNK one
by one, then to test them all when it comes the time to create a new release.
The problem is that I have always developed this ruleset the opposite way:
first I test a newly released version of freeciv, and then I introduce the
changes needed to adapt the ruleset to the new features and the new behavior
of the AI.
That is what I just made with S2_5 rev#24276 (sorry, I forgot to say), and the
result is this patch.

Said that, I'm up to adapt my work here so civ2civ3 can be fully integrated in
freeciv development.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

Thank you cazfi.
I uploaded a .zip here instead of a diff patch because I wanted to know the
opinion of the developers about the changes, and as you have explained, to
know the best procedure to include them in the trunk.
My next planned step was to make the diff patch against the trunk, but I'm
glad you already did it.
From now on, I'll introduce new changes to the ruleset by sending little diff
patches compared to TRUNK.

The removal of "UnrestrictedInfra" flag from the River was on purpose.
Actually, in previous versions I disabled the mov bonus in river because I did
not like to see units moving faster in enemy territory along rivers than
moving by roads/railroads.
I like that restrictedInfra rule affect them all in the same way: the idea is
that rivers represent boats being used to move faster, same than rails
represent trains used to move the troops.

I forgot to list a couple of changes to text names: I renamed swordmen back to
legion, and renamed aqueducts to "Aqueduct, River" and "Aqueduct, Lake" for
aesthetical reasons. I'm not sure if such changes to names can be introduced
in the branch S2_5 or not.

I'll verify your patches now.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

Patch for S2_5 is correct.
Patch for TRUNK only misses the change to description of mausoleum. I attach
the fix as a diff patch: Civ2civ3v6-fix1.patch

Please tell me if this is the right way to create patches, becuse I have
noticed your patches are someway different (mainly different paths and
headers).

(file #19946)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: Civ2civ3v6-fix1.patch  Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #11, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

I see there is no contradiction, I understand that you requested one ticket
(not just one patch) per logical change.

I remade the whole patch including the fix, then I noticed the result was so
different from your patch, that I decided to upload only the fix, and to let
you merge them.


I forgot to include in my list of changes the main difference between v5 and
v6 of the rules:
>- Reduced by one the gold upkeep of Aqueduct, Bank, Stock Exchange, Port
Facility and SDI Defense.
(In previous versions they were already reduced the costs of Colosseum,
University, Factory and Mfg Plant).

The result is more similar to civ3, it encourages the development of large
cities, and I have verified that AI behaves better with these new costs.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4460] civ2civ3 ruleset update to v6

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #12, patch #4460 (project freeciv):

Let me clarify that the readme inside the patch is correct, no need to change
it.

I just wanted to update the info of this ticket

Changes:
- Enabled Tech Upkeep, and multiplied by number of Cities.
- If a city supports more Military Units than its population size, each extra
unit will waste one Food, no matter the government.
- Large cities (Pop>=8) no longer get extra units free of upkeep or military
unhappiness. The result is 1, 2, or 3 free units per city, depending on the
government.
- Disabled happyborders: Units cause military unhappiness if they end the turn
outside cities or fortresses, no matter if they are inside national borders.
- Readjusted effect of some wonders: Mausoleum of Mausolos, Statue of Liberty,
and those related to military unhappiness.
- Fixed Aqueducts (same as Barracks) to avoid duplicated bonuses when there
are two of them in the same ciy.
- Swapped Empire Size values for Fundamentalism (now 20) and Monarchy (now
12).
- Pollution may appear in ocean tiles. Transports can clean it without the
need of WorkersEngineers.
- Enabled random disasters, and readjusted effects. Plague renamed to Flood.
- No infinite movement: Railroads x6, Roads x3, Rivers x3 (non diagonal). All
them (rail, road, river) restricted in enemy territory.
- Electricity allows Irrigation without adjacent water (as in civ3).
- Removed effect that prevented extra output from cities where Irrigation and
Mine were present at same time (no longer possible).
- Reduced by one the gold upkeep of Aqueduct, Bank, Stock Exchange, Port
Facility and SDI Defense.

Units:
- Units automatically move to the target tile after a successful attack, and
land units can not continue moving after the attack (OneAttack).
- Every unit pays some kind of Upkeep cost. Units lose one veteran level when
upgraded.
- Wheeled units (Big land) can conquer cities again, but do not take advantage
of terrain defense bonuses. Wheeled units can move to fortress even if not
roaded. Fixed bug that kept them from entering Glacier tiles.
- Fortresses do not affect national borders, and do not protect against Air
units nor Missiles (they do protect against Land and See units, included those
with CityBuster). Airbases do protect against Air units (+100% defend bonus).
- Rebalanced ancient units. Reduced defense of Archers to 1 and cost to 20 (no
IgZoc). Reduced cost of Legion to 30. Increased attack of Chariot to 4, attack
of Elephant to 3, and defense of Knights to 3.
- Triremes can navigate rivers. Caravel changed from (2/1) to (1/2), and cost
restored to 40, in order to encourage peaceful exploration of the seas in the
age of discovery. Reduced attack of Frigate and defense of Ironclad to 3 (was
4), and restored default costs.
- Air units can perform pillage (representing bombardment of infrastructure).
Increased defense of all Air units, in order to discourage the use of land
units to protect them. Helicopters can only be attacked by Fighters (with no
extra attack bonuses).
- Diplomats and Spies are invisible like submarines, but they pay upkeep costs
like all other units.
- Cheating AI level gets +50% defense bonus for units placed in land tiles
outside citiesfortresses. 

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21623] techs lost due to tech upkeep

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: techs lost due to tech upkeep
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: sáb 08 feb 2014 21:24:28 UTC
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:

When tech upkeep and tech loss are enabled, it is possible to lose a random
tech when the reserve of science bulbs are negative. However, the number of
negative bulbs needed to cause the loss of a tech depends on the cost of the
tech being researched, instead of the tech being lost.
I see this design problematic because the lost tech could be much cheaper (for
example 100 bulbs) than the negative bulbs (for example -500 bulbs). In this
case it would be better to lose the tech and to re-research it, than to pay
the tech upkeep (in the example, you waste 100 bulbs to recover a lost tech,
while you save 500 bulbs for not paying the upkeep).
I would suggest to handle the loss of techs in the same way than the loss of
buildings: when the bulbs are negative, the value in bulbs of the lost tech
(or a percentage choosen from 1 to 100%) is summed to the reserve of science.
There could be a setting to choose this percentage (or set it to 50% like the
sold buildings), but I think it should never be greater then 100%. I mean, a
tech that cost 100 bulbs should never restore your reserve of bulbs from -500
to 0 as it happens now.

More info in the forum: http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=241




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21623] techs lost due to tech upkeep

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21623 (project freeciv):

An example from the forum:

Let's say we are playing with the rule "one tech loss per turn when negative
bulbs" (the worst case as you said), and imagine the tech upkeep when you have
researched almost the whole tree is -1000 bulbs per turn, while the cheapest
tech in the ruleset costs 100. Now imagine you gain 2000 bulbs when taxes are
100% to science, or 2000 gold when taxes are 100% to gold.
In this case, it is a waste of money to pay the upkeep everyturn, it is better
to toggle between taxes 100% to money, and 100% to gold.

Option 1)
- taxes set to 50%: you pay 1000 bulbs for upkeep and gain 1000 gold.
After 2 turns you gain 2000 gold and you avoid losing techs

Option 2)
- taxes set to 100% gold one turn: you do not pay the tech upkeep, you lose
one tech that cost 100 bulbs, and gain 2000 gold.
- taxes set to 100% science next turn: you pay 1000 bulbs for tech upkeep, and
gain 1000 bulbs for research (-100 used to re-research the lost tech)
After 2 turns, you gain 2000 gold and 900 bulbs, and you suffer one turn
without one random tech.

It would be like paying 1000$ everyturn to upkeep buildings, and if you do not
pay it, you only lose one building that cost 100$ to be rebuilt. In the case
of buildings you also lose the effects of the building until you rebuilt it,
but in the case of technologies, the only purpose of most techs is to be
requisite of other techs that you already researched, or to build improvements
that you already built.


My suggestion would be to sum to the reserve of bulbs a percentage of the cost
of the lost tech, 50% by default, similar to buildings sold.
If you lose a tech worth 100 bulbs, you sum 50 to the final balance.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21623] techs lost due to tech upkeep

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21623 (project freeciv):

I like your solution.
I'll try to test the patch.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21623] techs lost due to tech upkeep

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21623 (project freeciv):

I have been testing this patch a bit with civ2civ3 rules (tech_cost_style = 2,
tech_leakage = 1, tech_upkeep_style = "Cities") and it seems to work right:
- I tested different values for techlossrestore (-1, 0, 50, 100) and the bulbs
restored by lost techs were as expected.
- With techlossrestore = 0, it is possible to lose all your techs and yet keep
negative balance of bulbs, but the games seems to handle it without errors.
- I observed a couple of AI games with techlossforgiveness = 0, and the AI
seems to handle properly the tech upkeep. I did not notice any weird behavior
due to enabled loss of techs.


I'm going to open another ticket to update the civ2civ3 rules with these
options enabled by default (and a related rule fix).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21637] civ2civ3 rules: enabled loss of techs

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 rules: enabled loss of techs
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 11 feb 2014 06:08:49 UTC
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:

In the current version of the rules it is enabled the tech upkeep, but there
is no risk to lose techs if you do not pay the upkeep.

This patch enables these settings by default:
  "techlossforgiveness", 0
  "techlossrestore", 50
Adds Anarchy effect to ignore tech upkeep.
Updates readme 

I changed my name in the readme from author to original developer, I suppose
it is more appropriate for now on.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 11 feb 2014 06:08:49 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-techlost.patch  Size: 5kB  
By: bardo


---
Date: mar 11 feb 2014 06:08:49 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-techlost-S2_5.patch  Size:
5kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21637] civ2civ3 rules: enabled loss of techs

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21637 (project freeciv):

This patch requires the patch for bug #21623
(because I included the server setting techlossrestore)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21637] civ2civ3 rules: enabled loss of techs

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21637 (project freeciv):

ok, thank you.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong
situations 
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mié 12 feb 2014 02:48:44 UTC
Category: ai
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 2.5
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

I have noticed for some time (since v2.5) that AI often set the taxes to
maximize the gold (to the max allowed by the government, for example 60% under
Despotism), and the rest of the taxes are set to generate luxury (40% in the
example), even when celebrations are not allowed and luxuries are not really
needed.

I attach a savegame played with S2_5 (civ2civ3 rules, cheating AI level), and
the related log of AI TAXES of this turn.

You will see some of the AIs are stuck to 0% science, max % allowed set to
gold, and the rest % to luxury. For example:


Wilhelm I [max] rate=70
Wilhelm I [old] (Sci/Lux/Tax)=0/30/70
Wilhelm I [tax] estimated=-34 real=97 (delta=-131)
Wilhelm I [tax] trade=113 gold=246 expenses=113
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=0 income=-48
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=10 income=-37
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=20 income=-25
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=30 income=-14
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=40 income=-3
Wilhelm I [tax] Tax=50 income=8
Wilhelm I [tax] min=30 balanced=50
Wilhelm I [sci] estimated=57 real=0 (delta=57)
Wilhelm I [sci] trade=113 bulbs=112 upkeep=0
Wilhelm I [sci] Sci=0 research=-5
Wilhelm I [sci] min=0 balanced=0
Wilhelm I [res] balanced! (Sci/Lux/Tax)>=0/0/50
Wilhelm I [new] (Sci/Lux/Tax)=0/30/70


I have found the same weird AI behavior with and without tech upkeep, and both
at normal and cheating AI level (but it seems more often at cheating AI
level).
However, I have not seen it with classic rules, so I'm not sure about the
trigger.

I'm checking the file aihand.c because I'm almost sure there is a bug there,
but it is a bit complicated for me.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mié 12 feb 2014 02:48:44 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-taxes.txt  Size: 9kB   By:
bardo


---
Date: mié 12 feb 2014 02:48:44 UTC  Name:
civ2civ3-taxes-T0128-Y00560-auto.sav.bz2  Size: 93kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

I found the cause, and it is not a bug, but a bad design, imho.

It is related to this code inside aihand.c


  /* Put the remaining to tax or science. */
  if (!adv_wants_science(pplayer) || dai_on_war_footing(ait, pplayer)) {
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
  log_base(LOGLEVEL_TAX, "%s [res] crazy "
 "(Sci/Lux/Tax)>=%d/%d/%d",
   player_name(pplayer), rates[AI_RATE_SCI],
   rates[AI_RATE_LUX], rates[AI_RATE_TAX]);
  
  } else {
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
  log_base(LOGLEVEL_TAX, "%s [res] sane "
 "(Sci/Lux/Tax)>=%d/%d/%d",
   player_name(pplayer), rates[AI_RATE_SCI],
   rates[AI_RATE_LUX], rates[AI_RATE_TAX]);


It seems the ai set the taxes to be able to pay the upkeeps (techs and
buildings), and the remaining taxes are send, in this order, to science, gold
and luxury... (this is good to me)

except if the ai is "on_war_footing", then the remaining taxes are send to
gold (ok), luxury, and science.

It seems the AI ends often in this "on_war_footing" state, and they prefer
luxury over science.

It was hard to notice in versions previous to 2.5 because HARD or CHEATING AI
levels overide the limits to taxes by governments, and the result was taxes
set 100% to gold; instead of 60% to gold, and 40% to luxury like now. 

I'll upload my suggested solution to prioritize the remaining taxes this way:
1) if (!adv_wants_science(pplayer) then gold, luxury, science
2) if dai_on_war_footing(ait, pplayer) then gold, science, luxury

I think it improves a lot the researching capability of the AI when taxes are
limited by H_RATES.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

I found the cause, and it is not a bug, but a bad design, imho.

It is related to this code inside aihand.c


  /* Put the remaining to tax or science. */
  if (!adv_wants_science(pplayer) || dai_on_war_footing(ait, pplayer)) {
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
  log_base(LOGLEVEL_TAX, "%s [res] crazy "
 "(Sci/Lux/Tax)>=%d/%d/%d",
   player_name(pplayer), rates[AI_RATE_SCI],
   rates[AI_RATE_LUX], rates[AI_RATE_TAX]);
  
  } else {
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
  log_base(LOGLEVEL_TAX, "%s [res] sane "
 "(Sci/Lux/Tax)>=%d/%d/%d",
   player_name(pplayer), rates[AI_RATE_SCI],
   rates[AI_RATE_LUX], rates[AI_RATE_TAX]);


It seems the ai set the taxes to be able to pay the upkeeps (techs and
buildings), and the remaining taxes are send, in this order, to science, gold
and luxury... (this is good to me)

except if the ai is "on_war_footing", then the remaining taxes are send to
gold (ok), luxury, and science.

It seems the AI ends too often in this "on_war_footing" state, and they prefer
luxury over science.

It was hard to notice in versions previous to 2.5 because HARD or CHEATING AI
levels overide the limits to taxes by governments, and the result was taxes
set 100% to gold, instead of 60% to gold, and 40% to luxury.

I'll upload my suggested solution to prioritize the remaining taxes this way:
1) if (!adv_wants_science(pplayer) then gold, luxury, science
2) if dai_on_war_footing(ait, pplayer) then gold, science, luxury

I think this fix improves a lot the researching capabilities of the AI when
taxes are limited.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21641] When gold_upkeep_style = 2, building upkeep not taken into account for taxes

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: When gold_upkeep_style = 2, building upkeep not
taken into account for taxes 
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mié 12 feb 2014 06:26:21 UTC
Category: ai
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: all
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

When gold_upkeep_style = 2, AI does not take into account the upkeep of
Buildings when they decide the tax rates.

I knew there was something wrong with gold_upkeep_style for long time, but I
was unable to debug the code until now, and finally I found the exact cause.

Related code in aihand.c:


  /* Find total trade surplus and gold expenses */
  city_list_iterate(pplayer->cities, pcity) {
if (NULL != trade) {
  *trade += pcity->surplus[O_TRADE];
}

if (NULL != expenses) {
  *expenses += pcity->usage[O_GOLD];
}

if (NULL != income) {
  *income += pcity->surplus[O_GOLD];
}
  } city_list_iterate_end;

  if (game.info.gold_upkeep_style > 0) {
/* Account for units with gold upkeep paid for by the nation.
 * (game.info.gold_upkeep_style = 1 & 2) */
unit_list_iterate(pplayer->units, punit) {
  *expenses += punit->upkeep[O_GOLD];
} unit_list_iterate_end;
  }
}


Latest time that I reported this bug, someone added the part to sum the
expenses due to upkeep of units, but we forgot to sum the upkeep of buildings
for game.info.gold_upkeep_style = 2, because in this case they are not
included in city expenses.

You can verify by watching the value of variable "expenses" in game. I do not
know the code enough to create a patch.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21641] When gold_upkeep_style = 2, building upkeep not taken into account for taxes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21641 (project freeciv):

After many autogames watching the AI with different gold_upkeep_style, I
suspect there is a similar bug that affect the decission to build improvements
by AI, but I'm not sure and I do not know this part of the code.

When there are units with gold upkeep, I have noticed that the AI seems to
build less improvements if gold_upkeep_style = 0, where upkeep of units is
taken into account by each city.
While rulesets with gold_upkeep_style = 1 behaves similar to classic rules,
where the only upkeep paid by each city is due to buildings.
Then, it was this buggy gold_upkeep_style = 2 where AI seems to build more
improvements, but it was alwasy losing them due to bankrupt.

If the code was right, I suppose it should be immposible to notice any AI
difference.
In the other hand, the only reason why I used different gold_upkeep_style in
my rulesets was because they affected the AI behavior, so I'm not sure if this
part was intended or not.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

After some tests, I suggest simply to remove this condition:
>|| dai_on_war_footing(ait, pplayer)

When at war, some extra money could help the AI to win some battle, but extra
science is more useful to win the war. I see no reason to stop all kind of
researching in this case.

My suggested code:

/* Put the remaining to tax or science. */
  if (!adv_wants_science(pplayer)) {
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
  
  } else {
rates[AI_RATE_SCI] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_SCI]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_TAX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_TAX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));
rates[AI_RATE_LUX] = MIN(maxrate, rates[AI_RATE_LUX]
  + RATE_REMAINS(rates));

This simple change makes the AI much more efficient in my opinion, no matter
if there are limited taxes or not.

I do not attach any patch, I let developers decide the best way to fix it, but
I find a game breaker the current code where luxuries are prioritized over
science.
(note there are some leftover log entries in previous post, sorry)

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21629] civ2 - barb cities can't build anything due to waste

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21629 (project freeciv):

In civ3, corruption/waste could not reduce the production of a city under 1. I
like this solution, if possible.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

Uploaded patch with my suggested fix.

(file #20027)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: TaxesScienceOnWarFooting.patch Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

Ok, I understand it.
Prioritizing Gold, and then Science (in stead of Luxury) in that case of "on
war footing" sounds good enough to me. It will fix the problem that I noticed
where AI was setting taxes to uneeded luxury, and nothing to science.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21641] When gold_upkeep_style = 2, building upkeep not taken into account for taxes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21641 (project freeciv):

Oh, yes, it is exactly the same bug, I didn't see it.

I understand what you say, and I think mostly the same: if the only difference
comes when the player runs out of money, then gold upkeep styles are not
really needed.
However, for some reason, they affect the AI behavior, and that is the reason
why I use them in my rulesets.

I have not read the AI code much, but from my experience, the AI seems to take
into acount the expenses of a city when it comes time to decide to build
another improvement, and the AI seems balanced when the only expense of the
cities is the gold upkeep of buildings.
However, when we introduce units with gold upkeep in a ruleset (and default
gold_upkeep_style = 0), then the expenses of the cities are increased by these
units, and the AI seems to build less improvements in the cities, but nothing
stops them from creating more units (that I know), and at the end the AI is
not very challenging (too much units that they can not support due to lack of
developed cities).

When I use gold_upkeep_style = 1, the amount of units do not seem to affect
the construction of buildings in AI cities, and the result are AI cities more
similar to rulesets where there are no units with gold upkeep.

Then, there was this gold_upkeep_style = 2, where AI seems to build
improvements as if there were no tomorrow. It is a bug, but in some rulesets
where buildings are really important, the AI was much more challenging this
way.

My guess is that someone introduced those gold_upkeep_style as a workaround to
avoid redesigning the AI behavior to take into account properly the units with
gold upkeep, and it is a solution good enough to me.

But again, I do not know the code, and I might be wrong.
I'll try to test this patch #2863, I'm curious to verify if gold_upkeep_style
= 2 still affect the AI behavior once fixed.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

Ok, I can do it, and I'll test it.
The way we decided, it will only affect the AI with the handicap H_RATES, it
should be easy to test.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21640] AI set taxes >0% to luxury, and 0% science, in wrong situations

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #21640 (project freeciv):

Patch for TRUNK and S2_5.

When AI is "onwarfooting", the reamaining taxes (after paying upkeeps) are set
to maximize the gold, and the rest goes to science (instead of luxury).

I have verified that this patch does not affect the AI when max taxes are 100%
(autogames with same seed, classic rules, and hard AI level).


(file #20150, file #20151)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: TaxesOnWarFooting-2.patch  Size:1 KB
File name: TaxesOnWarFooting-S2_5-2.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 #21767] server crash while testing s2_5 alpha

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: server crash while testing s2_5 alpha
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: vie 07 mar 2014 17:52:33 UTC
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:

To reproduce, load this savegame where timeout is enabled, and it always
crashes for me at end of turn 89.

The log shows:

3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::839]: Emergency in Barcelona
(content, angry0, unhap0 food-5, prod-2)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::846]: Barcelona taking over Bilbao
square in (53, 59)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::846]: Barcelona taking over Madrid
square in (50, 57)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::883]: Emergency in Barcelona remains
unresolved

Then
> Violación de segmento (`core' generado)

I'd like to play a game in order to test this ruleset with v2.5 before it is
released. Please, tell me which revision would be good for such test.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: vie 07 mar 2014 17:52:33 UTC  Name:
S2_5-rev24626-civ2civ3-T0089-Y-0275-auto.sav.bz2  Size: 78kB   By: bardo



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21767] server crash while testing s2_5 alpha

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21767 (project freeciv):

Another savegame (from different game) with similar crash, if it helps.
I'm using S2_5-rev24626. I added it to savegame name.

Log:

3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::839]: Emergency in Onondaga
(content, angry0, unhap1 food-4, prod9)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::846]: Onondaga taking over Teyagon
square in (70, 33)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::846]: Onondaga taking over Teyagon
square in (71, 33)
3: in resolve_city_emergency() [aicity.c::866]: Emergency in Onondaga
resolved
3: in map_calculate_borders() [maphand.c::2021]: map_calculate_borders()
3: in map_calculate_borders() [maphand.c::2029]: map_calculate_borders()
workers
3: in unit_versus_unit() [unittools.c::248]: attack:60, defense:33, attack
firepower:1, defense firepower:1


(file #20277)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: S2_5-rev24626-civ2civ3-T0088-Y-0300-auto.sav.bz2 Size:83 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21767] server crash while testing s2_5 alpha

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21767 (project freeciv):

hehe, you were faster to fix it than me to upload the 2nd savegame.
I'll play my test game with this patch.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #1803] Tool: Map Importer (from Civ4 to Freeciv)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #1803 (project freeciv):

True. I didn't know how to add gzip capabilities to my program, I'll try to
add it for future versions if people interested.
At least, I have verified that non-compressed scenarios do work in Freeciv,
so compression is only an improvement.

Wrap: I forgot to import the [map] options from the Freeciv scenario, I'll
release v0.2 when I fix it.

Rivers: in Civ4 if you place rivers in adjacent tiles, you can decide which
rivers will be shown connected and which not. That is why Civ4 scenarios
include much more tiles with rivers. If you'd import an scenario with less
rivers, I guess it would appear better in Freeciv. However, I like those map
full of rivers, I even see them more realistic.
It is only a visual issue, same than when you see mountains in adjacent tiles
joined to each other, instead of seing mountain ranges. It is good enough for
me.

The option S-W simply would move all the rivers 1 tile to South and 1 tile to
the West compared to N-E. It also affects the capability of some rivers to
reach the sea that is imo the main problem of the conversion from civ4 to
freeciv.

Thank you for your tests and comments.

___

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 #1803] Tool: Map Importer (from Civ4 to Freeciv)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #1803 (project freeciv):

I suggested to syntron the possibility to add this "import" feature into
freeciv map editor, but he said it is complicated because the map is
generated in the server and the editor moddifies it in the client (if I
understood).
He suggested to create some kind of lua script. But I do not know lua
programing, only c and java. I chose java due to multiplataform support.
My intencion when I upload it here was that maybe people here could upload it
to the /freeciv/contrib/utils/ section, where I already found another java
tool. Or you can import my code to freeciv or lua script, whatever you find
better.

I asked in the forum about possible legality issues before sharing it.
Thinking about it, it is the same than OpenOffice can import MSOffice files.
I guess it should be legal. Note I did not cracked any Civ4 map info, they
are plain txt files with similar information than freeciv files.

I already took some few compromise decisions to create the current importer,
and I think the result is very playable. In fact, I find some imported maps
better than some default freeciv maps.

About rivers, I understand the effect over gameplay, and I see it could be an
issue for some people. I mean that the imported freeciv map includes the same
ammount of rivers than the original civ4 map, and the difference is only
visual.
As I said, I enjoy playing maps with lots of rivers, and people who do not
like them still can try to import civ4 maps where there are less rivers.

Topic in the forums: http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?t=6335

___

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 #16308] Great Wall protects wrong units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16308 (project freeciv):

A question related to this bug:
I'm working on a Ruleset where I want the Great Wall to give an additional
defense bonus instead of replacing the Walls.

With current Ruleset capabilies: Would it be possible to give this defense
bonus to every unit placed inside your national borders? or to every unit in
some of the tiles owned by your cities (workable tiles)? or to every unit in
same continent than the Great walls?

___

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 #16413] Gold upkeep and Military unhappiness

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Gold upkeep and Military unhappiness
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: tirolalira
Submitted on: jueves 12/08/10 at 22:48
Category: rulesets
Severity: 1 - Wish
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 2.2.2
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

1) There is a side effect of some wonders that allows you to bypass the
unhappiness caused by military units under Republic or Democracy
governments.

If you have one wonder with the effect force_content (as Bach cathedral) or
make_happy (as Hanging gardens) or no_unhappy (as Shakespeare theatre), then
cities with same population than the wonder effect (or less), can support any
number of military units out of the borders without revolt.
In fact, it seems cities with pop=1 can always avoid revolt switching his
only citizen to a specialist.
This issue is not very important when units are supported by shields because
the shield production of the city limits the ammount of units that can use
this cheat/exploit, but it is a mayor issue for any Ruleset based on gold
upkeep:
[code]
; Method of paying unit and improvement gold upkeep
; 0 - The player's total gold must be non-negative after paying upkeep
; costs associated with each city. If for any city the player's gold
; is negative, random buildings in the city are sold off. If the gold
; is still negative, then supported units with gold upkeep are
; disbanded.
; 1 - In the first step, the player's total gold must be non-negative after
; paying upkeep for all buildings within a city. If for any city the
; player's gold is negative, random buildings in the city are sold off.
; In the second step, gold upkeep for all units is paid in a lump sum.
; If the player does not have enough gold, random units with gold upkeep
; are disbanded.
; 2 - Gold upkeep for all buildings and units is paid in a lump sum after
; all cities have been processed. If the player does not have enough
; gold, random buildings from random cities are sold. If still more
; gold is needed, then random units with gold upkeep are disbanded.
gold_upkeep_style = 0[/code]

It is hard to balance Rulesets based on Gold upkeep, and the main problem is
that there is no limit to the ammount of units that a player can create, nor
to the number of units that a city can support (under democracy you could
even support thousands of units by gold).

I thought a simple solution that could solve all these issues, and it would
ensure balanced wars under any type of government:

I would wish a new optional Rule, that sets the ammount of population as the
maximun number of military units that a city can support.
This way, a city that supports as much units as his population value, can not
build new units, and you can not select it as the home city for other units.

I have verified that AI already uses to create a number of units lower than
his total population, and I think it is a balanced number, that you'd expect
to find in a city a number of units equal to his population.

2) Another issue about Gold upkeep:
I have been testing a lot this system, watching AI behavior carefully, and I
have seen the AI sometimes enter banckrupt due to the ammount of units
supported by gold, and when buildings start to be destroyed they lose even
more money due to missing marketplaces, banks, or temples replaced by
luxury...
At the end I have seen some AI unable to restore positive income, losing most
of the buildings in their cities, and still supporting a huge ammount of
units...

It might be a good idea to disband at least one unit supported by gold,
everytime you end turn with negative cash.


Please, tell me what do you think, because I feel those changes would be
important to get a balanced ruleset based on gold upkeep, even when I know it
is not a priority.




___

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 #16308] Great Wall protects wrong units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #16308 (project freeciv):

Sorry me, previous post was mine, I forgot to login.

___

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 #16506] Non-military units belonging to a class without the ZOC class flag have a ZOC

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #16506 (project freeciv):

I also expected that a unit class without ZOC flag would not impose zone of
control, that is why I confirmed the bug.
It seems it is not a bug, we just missunderstood the purpose of the flag.

___

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 #16413] Gold upkeep and Military unhappiness

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #16413 (project freeciv):

Great!, thank you for this patch.
I'll try to compile the trunk just to test this patch.

About the other wish/suggestion:

...a city that supports as much units as his population value, can not build
new units, and you can not select it as the home city for other units.


I guess it would be much more simple to implement only the second part:

if a city supports more units than his population value, you can not select
it as the home city for other units.


And it should be enough to avoid the exploit to bypass military unhappiness.
I believe it could be useful even for default ruleset, though I suppose other
players should discuss it before.

Let's test this one first.

___

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 #16413] Gold upkeep and Military unhappiness

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #16413 (project freeciv):

I'm not experienced user of svn patches and I found troubles to test this
patch, maybe you can help me.

When I try to patch the head version of the current trunk I receive this
error "FAILED at 1746":

patch -p1 <
/Parches/20100828-01-trunk-update-gold-upkeep-style-2-to-sell-alternatively-a-u.patch

patching file data/civ1/game.ruleset
patching file data/civ2/game.ruleset
patching file data/default/game.ruleset
patching file data/experimental/game.ruleset
patching file data/multiplayer/game.ruleset
patching file server/cityturn.c
Hunk #5 succeeded at 1694 (offset 2 lines).
Hunk #6 succeeded at 1703 (offset 2 lines).
Hunk #7 FAILED at 1746.
Hunk #8 succeeded at 1854 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #9 succeeded at 1877 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #10 succeeded at 1885 (offset 3 lines).
Hunk #11 succeeded at 1938 (offset 3 lines).


Do I need to test the patch over certain previous trunk version?
Or it might be something I'm doing wrong?

(let me know if there is other place more apropiate for such novice
questions)

___

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 #16413] Gold upkeep and Military unhappiness

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #16413 (project freeciv):

Sorry me the double post, we post previous comment at same time.

I'm trying to apply the patch right now, but it is the first time I compile
the svn trunk version, and I advance slowly.

>Did you test the upkeep problem? I'm also playing longturn and at >the
moment I can't build a military unit because my city is to >small to support
it.

>City size: 1
>Possible military units: 1 (needs more testing; using shield >upkeep)

I'm not sure if I understood your post, does it mean that you already
included the population limit into the patch?
I'll verify it as soon as I can patch and compile it.


___

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