[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21851] Possible memory leak in city dialog (in X server?)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #29, bug #21851 (project freeciv):

I think this answer by email from Vasco Costa belongs here. Btw, thank you for
your work with gtk client.

>Guys,
I don't know if this is the issue but here is some info:
- if the memory leaks are severe it probably means we are leaking pixmaps
somewhere (it's the only thing that uses that much space).
- we had issues with severe memory leaks in citydlg.c when we did the initial
GTK+ 2.x client. I found out they were caused by the GtkImage widgets back
then (namely the units and possibly also the improvements icons). that's why I
eventually wrote the GtkPixcomm widget class (similar to the one present in
the Xaw client) to solve the memory leak and performance issues back then.
that supposedly solved the leaks.
- the production icons (added later) still used the standard GTK+ library
widgets (we never made our own specific list widget for this). so those should
use a lot of of memory. the fact is we shouldn't allocate any pixmaps or
pixbufs. We should just use the sprites data and redraw things as necessary to
avoid memory allocations.
- back then the easiest way to reproduce leaks was to repeatedly open and
close the city dialog.
- i also had issues with using Valgrind back then to debug the memory leaks.
but had some success with a leak detector tool that back then was used
developed by the GNOME developers (MemProf).

You guys should probably ask the GNOME or GTK+ developers what they currently
use to profile leak detection as they should have experience with this.
Valgrind should work but it's probably a configuration issue. See:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Valgrind

It hope this helps. I doubt there is a bug in X11 (it is usually pretty well
tested). I would not discount a bug in GTK+. But it is quite likely the bug is
in our application proper.

Regards,
-Vasco Costa
original GTK+/GTK+2.0 client port author.

___

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 #21851] Possible memory leak in city dialog (in X server?)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #28, bug #21851 (project freeciv):

I stopped playing freeciv for some time due to this issue, but I have no
longer noticed this problem in my upgraded linux version:
Kubuntu 15.10
KDE Plasma 5.4.2
gtk+ 2.24.28
glib 2.46.2

___

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 #5587] Labels for earth scenarios

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #5587 (project freeciv):

Implemented here:
http://www.hostedredmine.com/issues/659517

___

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 #5995] civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased costs.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #11, patch #5995 (project freeciv):

I'm testing a version where these governments get +100% costs instead of being
immune. Culture increases the costs up to +100%, and Courthouse effect is
reduced from +300% to +100%.
I'll create a new patch in the other site when ready.

___

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 #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #8124 (project freeciv):

>Do this ticket still depend on patch #7079
After some tests, I prefer the new costs even if triremes can navigate rivers.
And I saw a long turn game (that I used as reference for the new costs) with
triremes that can navigate rivers and cost 20, so I guess it is not so
unbalanced.
I consider both patches independent.

___

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 #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #8124 (project freeciv):

New version with same changes for sandbox, keeping the cost of 160 for
Battleship, and removing a non related change to merchant class.
The resultant costs are more similar to classic rules.

(file #29960)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-naval_costs-v2-trunk.patch Size:6 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #8123] civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all unit classes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #8, patch #8123 (project freeciv):

This patch includes the same changes for sandbox, and updated helptexts. (Not
included changes splited to other tickets).

(file #29959)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-defense_bases-v2-trunk.patch Size:11 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #8123] civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all unit classes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #8123 (project freeciv):

>The readme is updated, but the helptext of the bases is not.
>Why?
I forgot, you are right, the patch is not really complete. The helptext is not
wrong, but it'd require a more detailed explanation of the new bonus.
I was hoping some english speaker could finish that part, but I can try to
rewrite it. I'll do another version of the patch.




___

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 #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #8124 (project freeciv):

It'd require a change to readme of sandbox with the differences.
Tell me if you want me to do 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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #8123] civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all unit classes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #8123 (project freeciv):

>Why?
It is the way it works for fort and fortress too.
The original reason was that I did not like that the best tiles to place full
bases were those with a river (due to the extra defense). I find it more
realistic to see them placed adjacent to the rivers.
This way, a tile with a river and a fort/airstrip has lower defense than same
tile without river and a fortress/airbase.

___

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 #25589] "you see foreign island!"

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #25589 (project freeciv):

In http://www.hostedredmine.com/issues/650794,
I said I copied this improved text from Sandbox, but I actually copied it from
Experimental ruleset (the one in trunk).

___

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 #7187] Building gfx for Ecclesiastical Palace (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #7187 (project freeciv):

I used one of those Public Domain images to make a gfx with the style of the
other great wonders (made with GIMP in indexed color mode).

(file #29918)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: potala_palace.png  Size:5 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #13, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

Patch v2 fixes the double entry in the tech tree, and revises some related
code comments.

>We could use negative Unit_Recover to remove hit points to the new riverboat
unit every turn (3 turns of lifetime outside cities).
At the end, I did not include this effect. This patch lets players continue
v2.5 games almost as if nothing happened.

If we are going to kill the old triremes, I think it is not worth to create a
legacy class for them.

(file #29915)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-trireme_river_galley_v2-S2_6.patch Size:18 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #8124 (project freeciv):

I like these cost values, but I'm in doubt if cost of Battleship shall be 150
or 160 (classic value), in case someone interested to debate.

If 150, the (Attack*HP)/Cost of Battleship and AEGIS is the same than
(Defense*HP)/Cost of Carrier, but this way Battleship is never really
obsolete.

If 160, then (Attack*HP)/Cost is the same than legacy Cruiser, and Battleship
might be not worth once AEGIS is available.

What would you prefer?

___

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 #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #12, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

I have found a bug in my patch. The trireme is showed twice in the tech tree.
I'll upload the fix to hostedredmine when/if I can register/contact the
admins.

___

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 #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #8124 (project freeciv):

The purpose of the patch is to keep a ratio attack/cost or defense/cost more
similar to rest of units. The resultant costs:

UNITAtt  Def  Mov  FP   HP   Cost   
Galley  113110  *20   Cargo 2, Coastal
Caravel*1   *23110  *30   Cargo 3
Galleon 024120   40   Cargo 4
Transport   035130   50   Cargo 8
Carrier*095   *140  *150  Cargo 8
 
Frigate*324120  *40  *No Cargo
Ironclad4   *341   *20  *50
Destroyer   446130   60  *(x2 def anti-submarine)
Cruiser 665   *130   80  
AEGIS Cruiser   885   *130   100 *(x5 def anti-air/missile)
Battleship  12   12   4   *1   *30  *150 
Submarine   12  *55   *1   *20  *70   Cargo 8, Invis

___

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 #8124] civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3: reduced a bit the cost of naval units
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Wed 29 Mar 2017 10:49:09 PM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 
 Contains string changes: None

___

Details:

I'll send my next patches to hostedredmine, but I was unable to register yet.

Let me post here at gnu this last patch to reduce the cost of naval units,
related to patch #7079 (that removes ability of triremes to navigate rivers).
If triremes are kept in rivers, then its cost should be kept unchanged.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Wed 29 Mar 2017 10:49:09 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-naval_costs-S2_6.patch 
Size: 5kB   By: bardo



___

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 #8123] civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all unit classes

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #8123 (project freeciv):

The change related to river requirement of the airbases is a bug fix, and the
helptext already takes it into account.

The change to readme about happy borders is also a bug fix, they are no longer
disabled.

___

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 #8123] civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all unit classes

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3: bases give some defense bonus against all
unit classes
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Tue 28 Mar 2017 12:52:53 AM UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 
 Contains string changes: None

___

Details:

With this patch, fortresses give +100% defense against land and sea, but also
+50% against air and missile. The opposite for airbases.

Else, I think the units inside bases are too vulnerable against one type of
attack, specially at the final stages of the game.

It also increases the vision radius inside airbases the same than fortresses
with astronomy.

The readme is updated, but the helptext of the bases is not.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Tue 28 Mar 2017 12:52:53 AM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-defense_bases-S2_6.patch
 Size: 8kB   By: bardo



___

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 #23516] Unhardcode the bonus from "fortify" action

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #23516 (project freeciv):

Let me rephrase my wish here:
A ruleset option to disable the hardcoded defense bonus linked to the fortify
action.

It seems the rest of my first post can already be achieved with the current
ruleset modding capabilities. 

___

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 #8034] Enable culture victory by default in civ2civ3 and experimental?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #8034 (project freeciv):

I added culture effects to civ2civ3 for testing purposes, but they are not
properly balanced to enable a culture victory.
I think it would be too easy to win against the AI this way.

My idea was to use the culture to affect other minor effetcs like:
Civil_War_Chance, Spy_Resistant, Unit_Bribe_Cost_Pct, Incite_Cost_Pct.
I'll see if there are other effects available in latest freeciv version.

___

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 #7742] civ2civ3: allow building wonders next to Deep Ocean

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #7742 (project freeciv):

>This seems uncontroversial enough that I plan to commit it.
I agree, and I like the change.

___

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 #25070] civ2civ3: prevent building Harbour next to Lake?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #25070 (project freeciv):

I tested jtn's patch on v2.6, it seems to work as expected.

___

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 #25070] civ2civ3: prevent building Harbour next to Lake?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #25070 (project freeciv):

I agree it is not necessary that lakes enable the construction of harbours.
I remember that harbour required Ocean terrain in the first versions of this
mod, but I changed it to Oceanic in order to include Deep Ocean, and to keep
uniformity with other buildings like coastal defense and port facility.
However, these other buildings can be useful in lakes, while harbour can not.
I'll do the patch.


___

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 #24989] City bombardment leaks a lot of information to attacker

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #24989 (project freeciv):

I confirm that bombardment can be used to get this useful information. I
personally like it, but I admit it might be too much. What would you suggest?

At least, bombers are available at the same time than spies, that can
investigate the city without dying. But this issue could be a serious
limitation to give bombardment ability to early units like catapults or
frigates.

___

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 #7650] civ2civ3: require a Marketplace to enter

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #7650 (project freeciv):

I liked this idea when sveinung talked about it in patch 5995, but then I
remembered that these one-time bonuses from caravans can be "exploited",
specially in big maps, to get an endless source of gold. In multiplayer games
they use to forbid it, and I did the same in patch #7137.

As I understand it, the source of the problem is that the revenue when the
caravan enters the marketplace is proportional to the distance (between the
cities), with no max limit. If the map is big enough, it exists a distance
where the revenue is much greater than the cost of buying the caravan, and it
might be overpowered.

___

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 #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #10, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

>An intermediate solution could be to decrease the movement points to 1 when
on river.
After some tests, I see the same issues. It was not a useful idea.

>like adding a retirement effect that disbands them 10 turns after the old
savegame is loaded
We could use negative Unit_Recover to remove hit points to the new riverboat
unit every turn. For example:


; 3 turns of lifetime outside cities (and no recover inside cities)
[effect_riverboat]
name= "Unit_Recover"
value   = -4
reqs=
{ "type", "name", "range"
  "UnitClass", "Riverboat", "Local"
}



___

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 #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

>Units transported by triremes sailing on a river loose all their move points
ATM the trireme moves.
Such feature would be an improvement, but it'd not prevent all the issues
about transported units.
For example, a unit does not require move points to be unloaded and loaded to
other transport in the same river tile (or inside a city), so chained movement
would be still possible.

Anyway, if the only purpose of triremes on rivers is to increase the movement
of units, this can be simulated with the reduced costs of the movement along
the river tiles, that requires much less micromanaging. The same than rails
does not require a train unit in order to take advantage of the extra
movement.

>I attach a draft patch
Now that I opened your patch, I'm not sure if it is worth to introduce a whole
new unit class just for this purpose.

>I vaguely wonder about doing something to weed out old Riverboat units, ...
or giving them zero moves in the new ruleset but allowing them to be disbanded
for production points
I like how it sounds.
An intermediate solution could be to decrease the movement points to 1 when on
river, so it is not worth to use triremes further inland, but only near the
coast. I'll test 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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7187] Building gfx for Forbidden Palace (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #7187 (project freeciv):

The name of the building might change to Ecclesiastical Palace.

I have found these public domain images of the Potala palace that I think
could be used for the gfx of this building:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tibet_Potala_Palace.JPG
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Potala_Palace_PD.jpg

___

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 #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, patch #7159 (project freeciv):

Alternative patch with the name Ecclesiastical Palace, and the term
Ecclesiastical capital included in the description of the building.

Diff against same revision that previous one (rev32504).

(file #27429)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-ecclesiastical_palace_v3-S2_6.patch Size:6 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

I like your solution. I'll test 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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #7159 (project freeciv):

I like it. In spanish, the equivalent name "Palacio Eclesiastico" would fit
perfectly. It is a generic name for important religious buildings, sometimes
used to refer to the Vatican Palace.

Shall we name it "Ecclesiastical Palace" then?

___

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 #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #7159 (project freeciv):

Attached new patch with changes to Readme related to the extra luxury from
Federation, that I forgot.

(file #27308)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-forbidden_palace_v2-S2_6.patch Size:6 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #7159 (project freeciv):

>Best I could think of was "Apostolic Palace"
It made me think, what about "Potala Palace"?
Although it will be a small wonder that every nation can build, so I would
prefer a more generic name.

___

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 #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #7159 (project freeciv):

This patch adds the small wonder "Forbidden Palace", available with Theology,
that acts as a second center of government.

This reduction to corruption/waste by distance reduces the advantage of
governments that avoid such effects, like Federation and Communism. I think
Communism is good enough, but I decided to boost Federation a bit more, making
it a good alternative to maximize happiness/celebration: 
The patch increases the bonus to luxury by the government Federation from +1
to +3 per city (1 free happy citizen, 2 with marketplace, 3 with bank...).

(file #27284)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-forbidden_palace-S2_6.patch Size:5 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #24617] NoAggressive flag of Fortress not working in civ2civ3

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #24617 (project freeciv):

Ah, I did not know this requirement.
It works as you say, when the fortress is max 3 tiles from the city. Then
there is no bug.

We could change this ticket to a request to mention it in the help text of the
bases.

___

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 #24617] NoAggressive flag of Fortress not working in civ2civ3

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: NoAggressive flag of Fortress not working in
civ2civ3
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Wed 27 Apr 2016 10:41:50 AM UTC
Category: rulesets
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'm testing S2_5 rev32504, civ2civ3 ruleset.

The flag NoAggressive from the fortress should prevent units inside from
causing military unhappiness. I have verified it works this way with classic
rules, and I think it used to work in civ2civ3 too.
Attached savegame where there are 2 units inside a fortress and they are
causing unhappiness in the city.

In civ2civ3 the fortresses do not claim the tile where they are placed, I'm
not sure if the problem can be related to this.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Wed 27 Apr 2016 10:41:50 AM UTC  Name:
civ2civ3-s2_5-fort_noagressive.sav.bz2  Size: 26kB   By: bardo



___

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 #7137] civ2civ3 - Restore movement of Caravans, and disable the one-time revenues

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #7137 (project freeciv):

Sorry, I forgot to allow movement of Merchant in Glacier tiles.
New patch v4 including this fix.

(file #27222)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-merchants_v4-S2_6.patch Size:10 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7159] civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 - Second palace small wonder
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Wed 27 Apr 2016 07:08:32 AM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

They have included in longturn games the possibility to create a second palace
that acts as another government center that helps to reduce corruption and
waste caused by distance.
I like how they implemented it, a small wonder available with Theology, and
with same bonuses than standard Palace.

I do not attach the patch, because I'm still testing it, and because I'd need
a name.

In civ3, it exists a similar wonder, and it is named Forbidden Palace, but I
really like to link it to the tech Theology, and I'm not sure if the real
chinese palace has any relation to religion or theology.

It would also require a new gfx icon. I have removed the tech requirement of
the standard Palace (Masonry) so it does not appear the same icon twice in the
tech tree, for now. But it will appear twice in the city construction tab.




___

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 #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

They sometimes use Triremes on rivers for longturn online games, so they might
not be as unbalanced as I think.
If it is problematic we can try to keep it for now.

___

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 #7137] civ2civ3 - Restore movement of Caravans, and disable the one-time revenues

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #7137 (project freeciv):

New patch that keeps the text related to maglev.
I also changed the help text and readme to reflect that trade routes to enemy
cities are no longer possible.

>it's property of the merchant class, and we have support for class-range
helptexts in S2_6, so you may want to move that there.
I leave it for someone more confident to write in english.

(file #27221)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-merchants_v3-S2_6.patch Size:10 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7137] civ2civ3 - Restore movement of Caravans, and disable the one-time revenues

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #7137 (project freeciv):

Same patch, but with ZOC enabled for Merchant class.

Now that non military units do not cause ZOC (since v2.6, thanks to flag
hasNoZOC), I think it is better if Caravans can not ignore the ZOC of military
units.

(file #27180)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-merchant_v2-S2_6  Size:9 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7137] civ2civ3 - Restore movement of Caravans, and disable the one-time revenues

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 - Restore movement of Caravans, and disable
the one-time revenues
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Sat 23 Apr 2016 10:58:38 AM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

This patch restores the classic movement of Caravans and Freights (Merchant
class), so they no longer require roads or rivers to move. The only exception
is that they still can not use the Maglevs.

The main reason to create the special movement of Merchants, that has been
working in civ2civ3 until now, was to avoid the infinite movement of
railroads, in a time when the roads was not as moddable as now.
In current versions, I see no reason to keep this limitation that is not
intuitive for new players, nor easy for the creation of help texts.

This patch also disables the one-time revenue gained when a new trade route is
created, as well as the action "enter marketplace".
This one-time bonus is a known cause of exploits in multiplayer games, where
they use to divide the effect by a high number.
I suggest to disable it for good now that v2.6 allows it.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 23 Apr 2016 10:58:38 AM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-merchant-S2_6  Size:
10kB   By: bardo



___

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 #5597] civ2civ3: achievements

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #5597 (project freeciv):

Right, I still use v2.5 to play my own games, where culture is not available,
and I'm not confident to introduce changes that affect gameplay until I can
test v2.6 better.
With this patch, culture would be just a statistical value, like military
service, or the other demographic info.

My idea was to wait until the values are well balanced and then to enable the
cultural victory, but I think such victory will always be much easier for the
human players than the AI.
I like your suggestion to add culture or achievements as requirement for some
other effect. In civ3 they use it for resistance against diplomatic actions,
and also for increased borders (preasure against enemy border). I'll see if
something similar is possible here.

I'll add a reference in the readme too.

___

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 #7096] civ2civ3 - allow cities to claim tiles worked by enemy cities

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 - allow cities to claim tiles worked by
enemy cities
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Mon 11 Apr 2016 01:19:06 AM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

This patch sets a negative value to radius_sq_city_permanent = -5, that should
restore the old behavior before bug #23501 was fixed.

In my tests it allows large cities to steal all tiles from small enemy cities
(except the center tile). I like it this way to encourage border fights.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Mon 11 Apr 2016 01:19:06 AM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-claim_city_tiles-S2_6 
Size: 511B   By: bardo



___

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 #7095] Display real attack/defense values on middle click

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Display real attack/defense values on middle click
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Mon 11 Apr 2016 12:38:30 AM UTC
Category: client
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

A wish requested by case81 in the forum:
http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13=652

My suggestion would be to display the final attack and defense values used to
calculate the "chance to win".
For example, middle-click could show the real attack/defense of the clicked
unit against the selected unit.




___

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 #5597] civ2civ3: achievements

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #5597 (project freeciv):

My first attempt to introduce culture points and achievements to civ2civ3
ruleset:

-The buildings that generate culture points are the same than civ3, with
similar values.
-Every wonder generates an amount of culture points proportional to the
construction cost (cost/100).
-There is a hardcoded limit of max 10 achievements, so I used only one of each
type (8 in total).
But I think a higher limit would be useful to include the same achievement
with different values. For example 100 culture points for each 20% of map
known, or each new continent discovered (Land_Ahoy), or each different culture
of your citizens (Multicultural).

It needs more testing, and surely to readjust the values before the cultural
victory can be enabled, but it should allow other people to start testing it.

(file #27076)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-achievements-S2_6 Size:14 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #5597] civ2civ3: achievements

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #5597 (project freeciv):

>Maybe broke alliance, border friction or broke alliance in wartime can cause
a decrease of culture points.
I like the idea, but I don't know if possible. At least, I wouldn't know how
to implement 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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

And the patch...

(file #27075)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-trireme_river_v2-S2_6 Size:3 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #7079 (project freeciv):

New version of the patch that includes some related changes:
- Make Trireme obsolete by Caravels, again.
- Fix reference in the Lighthouse wonder.
- Update Readme. 

___

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 #7078] Give KillCitizen flag only to artillery and naval units.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #7078 (project freeciv):

I have been testing this patch a bit more and I think it was not a good idea
to give KillCitizen flag to Sea units, that can not conquer cities.
The first player to research Frigates could cause a lot of population losses
to the other players, but could be prevented by keeping cities void of units,
it seems odd.

I still like the change to remove KillCitizen from Land units, keeping it only
for Big Land units.

I'm not sure if I need to create a new ticket or you can reopen this one.
Thank you Sveinung. 

(file #27044)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-no_killcitizen_sea-S2_6.patch Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


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

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #7078] Give KillCitizen flag only to artillery and naval units.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #7078 (project freeciv):

I agree no need to change v2.5.

>In relative terms one does. If enemy gets weaker, one gets stronger in
comparison
That's true in a game with two players or two teams, but when there are more
players I'm not so sure.
Imagine a game with 3 players where you decide to attack one of them who has
no walls in their cities, but has more defending units than population (maybe
workers or warriors). If you continue the attack, both of you will lose units,
the defender will lose population, and the city will be destroyed instead of
captured, so it is a loss-loss situation, and the advantage goes to the player
who did not participate.

I agree Corbeau that there should be a way for the attacker to capture a city
without walls, else wars in a multiplayer game might not be worth, even for
the winner.

___

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 #7080] civ2civ3 - Enable happy borders by default

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 - Enable happy borders by default
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Sat 26 Mar 2016 08:37:29 PM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

People in the forums have reported how annoying it is to handle the
unhappiness without this option, and I agree it was a mistake to disable it.

This patch removes the related line so the ruleset is loaded with the default
option (enabled).
Removed the line related to sciencebox too, so it also loads the default value
(100).



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 26 Mar 2016 08:37:29 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-happy_borders-S2_5.patch
 Size: 517B   By: bardo


---
Date: Sat 26 Mar 2016 08:37:29 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-happy_borders-S2_6.patch
 Size: 517B   By: bardo



___

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 #7079] civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: civ2civ3 - Disallow Triremes to navigate rivers
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Sat 26 Mar 2016 08:26:25 PM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

The ability of triremes to move on rivers introduces some exploits that I do
not know how to prevent:
1) It is possible to bypass the rule "slow invasion" by moving from ocean to
river.
2) It is possible to use chains of triremes to allow one unit to move an
unlimited number of tiles (along a river) in one single turn (by repeating
load-move-unload, load...)
3) Even without chaining, a unit can move in the same turn inside a trireme
and then continue his own movement along the river.
It feels like using twice the bonus to movement on river and it causes a lot
of micromanagement.

I think the bonus to movement by river is a good representation of sails being
used to move the units faster. I suggest to remove this capability of triremes
for good.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 26 Mar 2016 08:26:25 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-trireme_river-S2_6.patch
 Size: 1kB   By: bardo



___

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 #7078] Give KillCitizen flag only to artillery and naval units.

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Give KillCitizen flag only to artillery and naval
units.
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: Sat 26 Mar 2016 07:51:28 PM UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

In response to this comment by Corbeau:
>...cities without walls shouldn't automatically lose population when unit
inside defeated. As it is now, attacking a city is a loss no matter how you
look at it: defender loses population and the attacker doesn't gain anything
if he destroys a city.

This patch removes the KillCitizen flag from standard Land units, and gives it
to Big Land (artillery) and Sea (naval). This way it is possible to capture a
city without walls by using non-artillery units.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 26 Mar 2016 07:51:28 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-killcitizen-S2_5.patch 
Size: 886B   By: bardo


---
Date: Sat 26 Mar 2016 07:51:28 PM UTC  Name: civ2civ3-killcitizen-S2_6.patch 
Size: 930B   By: bardo



___

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 #24175] AIs inappropriately set tax to 100% gold, stopping science (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #12, bug #24175 (project freeciv):

>AI was not really coping with having gold upkeep for units at all
I agree. But please, check if AIs are building marketplaces in your games. I
think there is an important issue there.

___

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 #24175] AIs inappropriately set tax to 100% gold, stopping science (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #9, bug #24175 (project freeciv):

I have tested some more AI games with classic and civ2civ3 rules (S2_6) and
AIs have never built a marketplace, library or harbour.
I think there is some problem in the code that decides if those buildings are
worth to build.

___

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 #24175] AIs inappropriately set tax to 100% gold, stopping science (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #24175 (project freeciv):

However, I have found other problems that could make it worse in 2.6 than
previous versions. While playing civ2civ3, the AI in v2.6 seems unable to
develop their cities properly, or to finish the tech tree, even when at
peace.

1) For some reason, I have never seen the AI building a marketplace, a
library, or a Harbour in my testing games.
I see many AI cities stuck building "coinage", when they could (and should) be
building markets instead.

Again, I have not checked the code, but could it be that those cities have
decided that they should build caravans to create trade routes, and since they
are not allowed in civ2civ3, they fall back to coinage?

2) AI likes Tribal gobernment too much, maybe due to my latest change (bonus
to veterancy), and this is not a good way to make money or science.


___

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 #24175] AIs inappropriately set tax to 100% gold, stopping science (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #24175 (project freeciv):

I think it is related to bug #21640.

Unless the code was changed since then, the AI was designed to maximize gold
tax rate when the state is "onwarfooting". Since "Hard" AI level allow them to
set it to 100%, they stop science research while attacking.

I'm not sure why this is not a problem with default rules, but I suppose the
AI is less prone to enter "onwarfooting" state with those rules.

My guess why it is worse in civ2civ3 is:
-default number of AIs is 12 instead of 5, so there are more wars.
-default map is continental, so it is easier to start an attack.
-it is easier to defend (harder to conquest a city), and harder to move in
enemy territory, so attacks require much more time.
-there are several governments without Senate that AI likes to use, while many
AIs in classic ruleset can not start a war due to Republic/Democracy
limitation.

It is just a guess, because I still do not know how to get AI code info/logs
while running a game, sorry.

___

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 #5915] civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers ("oil wells")?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #13, patch #5915 (project freeciv):

I never tested this patch in a normal game (from start). I'll do it 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] [bug #24175] AIs inappropriately set tax to 100% gold, stopping science (civ2civ3 ruleset)

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #24175 (project freeciv):

I was going to play my first game with S2_6 and I noticed the same problem
about AI stuck with 100% gold.
I'll keep testing to see if I can find why it is more problematic in civ2civ3
than other rulesets.

However, I remember that everytime that I tested civ2civ3 in a new freeciv
version, they appeared similar AI issues (AI unable to end the tech tree),
that forced me to adjust the rules, mainly those related to upkeep costs and
government effects.

I'll check your savegame to see what government is used by each 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 #24208] civ2civ3_earth-2015_04.modpack "End-of-file not in line of its own"

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #24208 (project freeciv):

I'd appreciate if you can fix it. Cazfi pointed this error some time ago, but
I have not worked on the modpack since then.

>amplio_earth tileset is not part of modpack, nor is it available on
modpack.freeciv.org. Should it be, or should we remove the reference?
You can delete the reference.

>what version number to use for such a minor fix? 2015_04.2?
I see it ok. Or maybe 2015_04b, what looks more similar to the version names
of the other modpacks.

 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 #3718] Conflation of attention and defence effects in (F)ortify keypress is annoying

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3718 (project freeciv):

I like it.
>Is there any reason it can't be this simple?
I don't see any 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 #24012] S2_6 cannot replicate S2_5 behaviour moving between different native roads

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #24012 (project freeciv):

I confirm you are right. Sorry me, I wasn't testing it properly.

>Since it is not possible to have a road and river on the same tile until
Bridge Building is discovered, this effectively means that merchants are
divided into two classes until then, depending on their home city: river
merchants and road merchants.
This part is not problematic to me. It even makes sense that river merchants
can not move to roads unless river and road are connected in the same tile.

>(There may be some fiddly ways to transfer given by the exception of #22319:
via a Trireme, or by being adjacent to a city, etc. Such special cases are
contrary to the spirit of civ2civ3.)
If the only exception is a city, I see it ok. But I don't like the exception
of the trireme either.

Anyway, as I said in other ticket, if the movement limitations of merchants
cause trouble, I think they can be reverted to move normally, and this will
not affect that much the gameplay.

___

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 #5876] civ2civ3_earth: modpack version for 2.5

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #5876 (project freeciv):

Thank you, I'll fix it for next version.

>- Ruleset proposes using a tileset that is not publicly available, as far as
I know.
The tileset is available in the forums
(http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=11=86). I wasn't sure about
including it in the modpack, being so similar to Amplio/Amplio2.

However, this code to change the tileset does not work for me, even when I
have the tileset installed:
[tileset]
prefered="amplio_earth"

___

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 #6551] Option to disallow chained naval movements

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  

 Summary: Option to disallow chained naval movements
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: jue 05 nov 2015 13:12:41 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

In latest versions of freeciv it is possible to load a unit in a ship, to move
the ship until it arrives other tile where there is another ship, to unload
the cargo, then to load it to the new ship, and to keep moving.
If ships are placed properly at the start of the turn, you can move the cargo
any number of tiles in one single turn.

This was the behavior of civ3 and I never liked it because it causes a lot of
micromanagement: load, move, unload-load, move..., because it encourages to
use chains of cargo ships in a very unrealistic way, and because it creates
the possibility of infinite movement in one single turn, even using ancient
ships.

I suggest to create a game option that allow players to dissable this kind of
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 #24012] S2_6 cannot replicate S2_5 behaviour moving between different native roads

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #24012 (project freeciv):

I have just tested S2_6 rev30384, and it is possible for merchants to move
from river to road (and road to river), even diagonally.

Could it be affecting only to v3.0? (that I have not tested).

___

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 #24011] civ2civ3 help: clarify relationship between merchants and maglev

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #24011 (project freeciv):

I agree this clarification would improve the help.
But I also wonder if it is worth to keep this "special" movement behavior of
merchants, that requires so many clarifications, while I think it does not
improve the gameplay that 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 #24009] civ2civ3 help: Caravans "are not affected by movement modifiers"?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #24009 (project freeciv):

>perhaps it's a hangover from an old rule.
You are right, I remember caravans had igTer flag in some old versions. That
text can be removed 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 #5915] civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers ("oil wells")?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #5915 (project freeciv):

If you like the changes introduces by this patch, I may change it to use the
new oil rig gfx made by GriffonSpade.

___

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 #5995] civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased costs.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #5995 (project freeciv):

Good points. Thank you for the ideas.
I'm afraid I won't be able to work on freeciv for some time (due to some back
issues), but I'm liking the idea to introduce some of those changes to
civ2civ3 in the future.
I'm specially interested on points 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5995

___
  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 #23609] civ2civ3: farmland on bare desert is worse than useless

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #23609 (project freeciv):

Should we just prevent building farmland on bare desert, so that players (and
the AI) don't accidentally spend time building useless infrastructure? 
I agree. Neither I like options available for players where there is a penalty
and no benefit, they look like a trap.

I guess the alternative is to prevent that those useless farmlands anulate the
bonus from Superhighways, but I prefer your suggestion.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23609

___
  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 #23610] civ2civ3: Super Highways vs city tile farmland

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #23610 (project freeciv):

Good point. It was not intendend.

I never really liked those abstract irrigations placed in cities. I'd prefer
if the infrastructure automatically placed in cities were the same than those
placed in standard tiles.

I vote to correct those differences in the ruleset when possible.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23610

___
  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 #5876] civ2civ3_earth: modpack version for 2.5

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #5876 (project freeciv):

New pack where I included the changes from my latest patches that are
compatible with 2.5.
I also updated the ruleset name, description, and reference to readme.
Could you make this pack available in modpack-tool.


There is a bug that I'd like to fix if you did not upload it already.
The bug was related to cheating AI bonuses, fixed now.

(file #24368)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3_earth_modpack_04-2015.zip Size:88 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5876

___
  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 #5996] civ2civ3: double spaceship costs

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #5996 (project freeciv):

It appears that if the spaceship success rate is 100%, 1 population module
adds 100 points to the civ score for a maximum of 400 points from 4 modules.
Thank you. It makes sense.
But, when space victory is enabled, this score won't be taken into account. I
still miss a reason to create a full ship when you try to achieve a space
victory.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5996

___
  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 #6000] civ2civ3 meta-ticket

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #6000 (project freeciv):

Btw, everytime I post a comment, it says spam level set to 1 or something
like that.
It looks as if my posts were marked as spam by someone. If that is right,
please let me know.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

___
  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 #6000] civ2civ3 meta-ticket

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #6000 (project freeciv):

There is a section below Attached Files called Dependencies. You can
search for a ticket there. All mathes for your search will have a box next to
them. Check the box to add the dependency.
Thank you.
Then it seems it is not available for me. The section called dependencies is
void with no options.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

___
  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 #6000] civ2civ3 meta-ticket

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #6000 (project freeciv):

Could you set the patches as dependencies of the meta-ticket in the future?
I admit I do not know how to do that. I thought real meta-tickets were only
available to developers.

Anyway, the patches linked here are non dependent of each other. You can
accept some of them and reject the others without problems. The only relation
is that I tested them all at same time, and I wanted to keep track of them.

Please, let me know how to set dependencies, in case they are available to me.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

___
  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 #23300] Idea of Tribal government

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #23300 (project freeciv):

If that's the goal, Force_Content might be more appropriate (it can work
against unhappiness caused by aggressive units)
That is the goal, but in my tests, the martial law did not work against
unhappiness caused by aggressive units, either.

The only difference I found between make_content and martial law was the
effect of nationality, but it is not enabled in this ruleset.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23300

___
  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 #6014] civ2civ3: Should mountains move penalty apply also when traveling road?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #6014 (project freeciv):

Patch for v2.5 and 2.6.
Updated help text and readme.

(file #24284, file #24285)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-mountain_movement-S2_5.patch Size:1 KB
File name: civ2civ3-mountain_movement-S2_6.patch Size:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6014

___
  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 #23516] Unhardcode the bonus from fortify action

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/bugs/?23516

 Summary: Unhardcode the bonus from fortify action
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 21 abr 2015 00:30:12 UTC
Category: rulesets
Severity: 1 - Wish
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

I wish it was possible to create a ruleset where this bonus to defense were
granted to every unit with remaining movement points (and the ability to
fortify), but without the need to wait until the fortify action finishes the
next turn.

I think the current ruleset modding capabilities allows to create this
alternative defense bonus, but it does not allow to disable the hardcoded
bonus linked to the fortify action.

My wished behavior is the way fortify worked in civ1 (if I remember right),
and I see many advantages for freeciv:

- the fortify behavior would be the same no matter if you play alternate
turns, or simultaneous.
- if you are playing in simultaneous mode, it'd be no longer important if you
move your units at the start of the turn or at the end. As long as you reserve
some movement point, the unit automatically gains the bonus to defense.

Right now, against the AI, in simultaneous mode you always get the fortify
bonus in the same turn; in alternate mode you never get it. Against other
players, it depends on when you move in the turn order.

- when there are no roads (or restricted), fast units would be suitable to end
the turn in flat terrain, because the remaining movement point would grant
this fortify bonus.
The resultant defense bonus would be similar to other unit that waste all the
remaining mps to move to rough terrain.
- you can use the action fortify only when you want to stop the unit from
being activated in the turn cycle. If you want to move the unit every turn,
you can simply press space. No need to use fortify and unfortify every turn,
because the bonus to defense is taken into account automatically, in a similar
way that you don't need to fortify the units inside cities in order to get the
defense bonus.

I hope some developer is up to create this patch.




___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23516

___
  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 #23517] suggestions for achievements

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/bugs/?23517

 Summary: suggestions for achievements
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 21 abr 2015 00:56:19 UTC
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:

Suggestions for new achievement types welcome.
cazfi wrote it in the forums, so here we go.

I'm trying to introduce the achievements in civ2civ3 (I'll use patch #5597
when ready), and I thougth a couple of suggestions that could be interesting:

- Allow future techs to generate culture points, so they can be used to
achieve a cultural victory.
Right now, the future techs has no effect in game, that I know.

- Right now, the value of the achievement Spaceship is ignored.
I suggest to use it to check the amount of population modules sent in the
spaceship, that can be 1 to 4.
Spaceships with more population are more expensive and slower, while they do
not seem to give any advantage, that I know.
I think it'd be nice to allow a player to achieve a cultural victory by
sending a larger ship before the smaller ship of another player arrives.





___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23517

___
  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 #5996] civ2civ3: double spaceship costs

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #5996 (project freeciv):

In my tests, it seems the best spaceship to win the game has 3 modules (1
population + energy + life support), 24 components (all available propulsors
so it arrives faster) and 20 estructural parts to join it all. Such ship
arrives in 7 turns with 100% of success.

If you add more space modules (more population), the ship will require more
turns to arrive and I can't see any 
advantage of the extra modules. That's odd, but it is not affected by the
ruleset, that I know.

I'm not sure if the AI hates you when you start to build the spaceship, or
when you launch it, so I'm not sure if the costs of the space parts will
affect the turns available for the AI to attack the winning player, that was
the main objective of the suggestion from the forums.

Anyway, I still like the idea to double the space costs because else it might
not be worth to research and buid Manufacturing Plants in your cities when you
aim for a space victory.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5996

___
  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 #6014] civ2civ3: Should mountains move penalty apply also when traveling road?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #6014 (project freeciv):

Good point.
The main reason of that rule was to discourage units with more than one
movement points (mainly cavalry) from moving the 1st tile to flat terrain and
the 2nd movement to mountain tile, gaining the bonus to defense without any
real penalty to movement, because the extra cost to enter the mountain is
ignored when there is only one remaining mp.

You are right that this reason does not apply when the mountain is roaded, and
the rule might cause some annoyances when the autopath decides to end the
movement of your unit over a mountain.

I'll do the patch.


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6014

___
  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 #23469] Wheel

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #23469 (project freeciv):

You are right, but it is more an issue related to the generic graphic fx used
to represent the colonist, than an inconsistence in the tech tree or the game
rules. In fact the colonists has one single movement point, while chariots
with wheels have two. 

You could say the same about the coastal defense showed with cannons even when
you have not researched the cannons (metalurgy). The fact is that historically
they were constructed coastal defenses before the development of cannons, but
cannons are the most representative for a gfx.

Something more odd to me is the look of diplomats with briefcase and umbrella,
even in the ancient times. But I do not think it is worth to create a
different unit just to change the graphical aspect, when there is no change in
the gameplay.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23469

___
  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 #6006] Update README.ruleset_civ2civ3 for Cheating AI defense bonus

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #6006 (project freeciv):

This patch included that fix to the readme, and also adds a bonus to bribe
costs for cheating AI, for parallelism with the handicapped AI penalties.

I've made my latest patches for v2.6 because I guess they will also apply to
trunk for now, and it easier for me to test them. I'll try to make them for
trunk next time.

(file #24261)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-ai_cheating-S2_6.patch Size:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6006

___
  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 #5995] civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased costs.

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #5995 (project freeciv):

Let me know if you were asking about something else.
My question was more about suggestions for rules related to diplomatic
actions, included bribe and incite costs. I have seen you have increased a lot
the modding capabilities of these actions and I was wondering if you had
something in mind when you did it, some rule or diplomatic gameplay that you
would like to see implemented, or that you have already done for your personal
use.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5995

___
  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 #5927] civ2civ3: pre-base gfx hidden by base; and not possible to upgrade over rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #5927 (project freeciv):

Updated patch for v2.6.

I'd like to rethink the relation between rivers and fortresses
No need to rethink the restriction in rivers. I believe this is the way to go
no matter the other effects of fortresses.

(file #24243)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-forts-v2-S2_6.patch   Size:2 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5927

___
  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 #5927] civ2civ3: pre-base gfx hidden by base; and not possible to upgrade over rivers

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #5927 (project freeciv):

I'll redo it.
In fact, I'd like to rethink the relation between rivers and fortresses,
depending on the result of this other patch #5998.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5927

___
  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 #5915] civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers (oil wells)?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #5915 (project freeciv):

Patch for v2.6.
It reserves the Oil Well for desert and glacier, and creates a different extra
for oceans, named Oil Platform.

I upload it already, in case someone knows a way to get the same effect
without the need to introduce an additional extra. But this patch would
require some more testing.

I also sorted the ruleset code so these effects related to terrains are placed
together.

Note that these changes hardly affects the gameplay until the research of
Refining.



(file #24245)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-oil_well-S2_6.patch   Size:11 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5915

___
  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 #23300] Idea of Tribal government

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #23300 (project freeciv):

Patch for S2_5 and S2_6.
Replace martial law effect by 3 extra content citizens in each city (in
practice, same than martial law but without the need of garrison units).
Switched civil war chance between Tribal and Despotism.

Updated government description and readme. From now on, I'll add jtn to the
mail list when my patches change the help texts, in case he wants to revise
them.

(file #24231, file #24232)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: civ2civ3-tribal_martial_law-S2_6.patch Size:4 KB
File name: civ2civ3-tribal_martial_law-S2_5.patch Size:4 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23300

___
  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 #6000] civ2civ3 meta-ticket

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #6000 (project freeciv):

I hope this time they appear as links...

patch #5999 civ2civ3: construction requires iron working instead of currency
patch #5998 civ2civ3: remove nostackdeath from bases
patch #5997 civ2civ3: allow missiles to attack air units
patch #5996 civ2civ3: double spaceship costs
patch #5995 civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased
costs.
patch #5927 civ2civ3: pre-base gfx hiden by base; and not possible to upgrade
over rivers
patch #5915 civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers (oil wells)?
bug #23370 civ2civ3: cheating AI Defend_Bonus vs fort/airstrip?
bug #23300 Idea of Tribal government

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

___
  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 #5999] civ2civ3: Construction requires Iron Working instead of Currency

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?5999

 Summary: civ2civ3: Construction requires Iron Working instead
of Currency
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 14 abr 2015 23:53:03 UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

This is the smaller change that I found to make it possible that Iron Working
is a prerequisite to build Ironclads (Steam Engine), as well as Coastal
defenses/ Frigates (Navigation).

This issue from classic rules is claimed to be fixed in the readme of
civ2civ3, but it seems it was not true...

I was not confident to introduce it in v2.5, in case the altered tech tree
would show a new inconsistency, but I have been using it in my latest game and
the only odd thing that I found is that now it is theoretically possible to
research Electricity (and all the prerequisites) without knowing Currency nor
Trade.

This patch affects a bit the costs of other techs, but I do not think it can
affect the research paths or strategies.


Btw, right now, any change to the tech tree of civ2civ3 requires to manually
calculate all affected costs with the formula:
Tech Cost = Number of Parents * Constant. Do you think it might be worth to
include it in the list of hardcoded formulas?




___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 23:53:03 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-iron_working-S2_6.patch 
Size: 4kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24240

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5999

___
  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 #6000] civ2civ3 meta-ticket

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

 Summary: civ2civ3 meta-ticket
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mié 15 abr 2015 00:07:58 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

These patches are not really related nor dependent of each other, but I played
my latest game with all them, and I'd like to keep track of them as a whole.
Also, as a reminder of current pending patches by me.

 #5999 civ2civ3: construction requires iron working instead of currency
 #5998 civ2civ3: remove nostackdeath from bases
 #5997 civ2civ3: allow missiles to attack air units
 #5996 civ2civ3: double spaceship costs
 #5995 civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased costs.
 #5927 civ2civ3: pre-base gfx hiden by base; and not possible to upgrade over
rivers
 #5915 civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers (oil wells)?
 #23370 civ2civ3: cheating AI Defend_Bonus vs fort/airstrip?
 #23300 Idea of Tribal government




___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?6000

___
  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 #5996] civ2civ3: double spaceship costs

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?5996

 Summary: civ2civ3: double spaceship costs
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 14 abr 2015 18:17:50 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

In this topic http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13t=492, one of
Adamo suggestions was: Spaceship Component costs 160 shields, we might
increase its number to 1600 shields; Spaceship Module might cost 3200 instead
of 320 and Spaceship Structural might cost 800 instead of 80.

I think x10 costs are too extreme, but I liked the idea to increse them. My
patch doubles them to 150, 300 and 600.

However, I admit I do not fully understand the spaceship rules. Is there any
reason to send a ship with 4 space modules, when you can win the game the same
with 1 single module, that will be finished sooner and will arrive faster?
If there is no reason, maybe the x10 costs is not that crazy idea.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 18:17:51 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-spaceship_costs-S2_5.patch 
Size: 2kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24233
---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 18:17:51 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-spaceship_costs-S2_6.patch 
Size: 2kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24234

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5996

___
  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 #5998] civ2civ3: remove nostackdeath from bases

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?5998

 Summary: civ2civ3: remove nostackdeath from bases
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 14 abr 2015 22:43:51 UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

With this patch, bases no longer protect full stacks from being killed when
one unit is defeated.
This is a small change, but with a big effect on gameplay, so I'll try to
justify it.

When you play against the computer in simultaneous mode (the default), the AIs
always move at the start of the turn, so you can use your workers to build a
base that will be finished before the AI can attack you the next turn.
In your turn, you can use an engineer to move to enemy territory and to build
a fortress with the 2nd movement point (if moved to flat land), and then you
can move there your whole army in a stack, knowing that they will be protected
by the fortress (+100% defense, no stackdeath, and no unhappiness due to
agressive units) before the AI can attack.
In practice, once you have engineers, and as long as there is a route of flat
land, you can move stacks as if the server rule nokillstack was enabled.

In multiplayer this is also possible as long as you delay your movements until
the end of the turn, and it makes a huge difference in combat.

The introduction of pre-bases in 2.6 is supposed to solve this issue for
multiplayer, because you have one turn to try to attack the enemy pre-base
before he upgrades it. But AI does not know it, and at the end it is just to
delay the inevitable.

I have tried to find a better solution, until I realiced that the problem is
not the way the bases are built, but the fact that they grant an overpowered
bonus (a mobile nokillstack structure), and such rule spoils most of the
tactical aspect of the game for me.

I'm confident that the game against the AI is improved with this patch, mainly
because it removes an advantage that the AI does not use, and that is pretty
boring to use against.
I'm not so sure about multiplayer or non-simultaneous mode, but I personally
find more enjoyable to be forced to spread my army, to have to build several
bases, and to attack enemy cities from all 8 possible tiles, than to be able
to create a single fortress in the best defensive possition and to place the
whole army inside.

Also, players that do not like the killstack, can always enable the
nostackdeath server setting, that I think it is a more fair way to introduce
this rule, because the AI can also take advantage of it, and it is not so
important to move at the end of the turn.

I'd understand if you do not want to include it in 2.5, but I think it is the
version that needs it more, and I wish I had realiced it before the release.
Anyway, I'd like to hear other opinions.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 22:43:51 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-bases_stackdeath-S2_5.patch
 Size: 2kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24238
---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 22:43:51 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-bases_stackdeath-S2_6.patch
 Size: 2kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24239

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5998

___
  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 #5997] civ2civ3: allow missiles to attack air units

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?5997

 Summary: civ2civ3: allow missiles to attack air units
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: mar 14 abr 2015 20:54:03 UTC
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

Cruise missiles have stats similar to stealth fighters, so the balance of air
combat won't change much.
The main reason is to create an alternative counter against air attacks,
because AI does not seem to use fighters, while they do use missiles, at least
in my tests with v2.5.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: mar 14 abr 2015 20:54:03 UTC  Name: civ2civ3-air_missiles-S2_6.patch 
Size: 2kB   By: bardo

http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=24235

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5997

___
  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 #5995] civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by increased costs.

[David Fernandez]

URL:
  http://gna.org/patch/?5995

 Summary: civ2civ3: replace no incite and no bribe effects by
increased costs.
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: bardo
Submitted on: lun 13 abr 2015 20:16:06 UTC
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

Someone in the forums requested it long time ago, and I agree it is better to
penalize these actions with extra costs than to disable them completely under
certain gobernments.

I have hardly tested the costs of diplomatic actions in freeciv, and I'm not
confident to change them, but I have seen sveinung has made a lot of related
patched, and I'm interested to hear possible suggestions for civ2civ3.




___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5995

___
  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 #5915] civ2civ3: Require tech to mine deserts / glaciers (oil wells)?

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #5915 (project freeciv):

I'm liking the changes described in my previous post, and I will include them
in my next modpack (civ2civ3_earth) for testing.
I'll create a patch for v2.6 later.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/patch/?5915

___
  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 #23300] Idea of Tribal government

[David Fernandez]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #23300 (project freeciv):

I'm testing to replace the extra martial law by 3 extra contents in every city
(same effect than standard martial law but without the need to keep military
units in the city).
I'll create the patch later.

___

Reply to this item at:

  http://gna.org/bugs/?23300

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


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