Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Unreachableprotects for Capturing / Bombardment
On 25 April 2013 02:40, Emmet Hikory per...@shipstone.jp wrote: Looking at the UTYF_BOMBARDER nativity issue, I notice that GNA patches 1850 (unreachableprotects) and 1851 (capturer/capturable) seem to have surrounded the prior bombarder code, with the effect that Unreachable units do not protect other units from being captured or bombarded, regardless of the setting. In the case of capturing units, there is a test to ensure every unit at the target tile is capturable, but it doesn't also check to see if the capturable units are reachable, so that if one had a capturable unreachable unit (e.g. Payroll plane), it could be captured by units that would normally be unable to target the class (e.g. Horsemen). In the case of bombardment, whether a given unit happens to be reachable is checked as each unit is bombarded, but the stack is always presumed to be vulnerable, regardless of the server setting. As 1851 postdates 1850 in initial envisionment (if not application), and both postdate the bombarder code, I suspect these behaviours to be intentional, but thought it worth asking, as they seemed surprising to me. After so long time I can't say how long they had been in development before being first submitted (timestamps in patches indicate that final versions were created just before submitting, but that's the case with almost all my patches). Given my usual workflow it's entirely possible that despite them having consequtive patch numbers, they have been developet separately even without realizing they could affect each other. Addition of unreachableprotects setting certainly was meant to keep old hardcoded behavior when enabled for compatibility of old rulesets. - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Unreachableprotects for Capturing / Bombardment
Marko Lindqvist wrote: On 25 April 2013 02:40, Emmet Hikory wrote: Looking at the UTYF_BOMBARDER nativity issue, I notice that GNA patches 1850 (unreachableprotects) and 1851 (capturer/capturable) seem to have surrounded the prior bombarder code, with the effect that Unreachable units do not protect other units from being captured or bombarded, regardless of the setting. After so long time I can't say how long they had been in development before being first submitted (timestamps in patches indicate that final versions were created just before submitting, but that's the case with almost all my patches). Given my usual workflow it's entirely possible that despite them having consequtive patch numbers, they have been developet separately even without realizing they could affect each other. Heh. At least it's recent enough that the patch author is active on the mailing list :) Given the uncertainty, I'll consider the relation between capturable and unreachableprotects to be entirely coincidental. I want to look at the implications a bit more, but will probably submit a patch moving the capturer/capturable check inside the unreachableprotectsr+alliance guard (we don't really want to be capturing allied freight, etc.). Addition of unreachableprotects setting certainly was meant to keep old hardcoded behavior when enabled for compatibility of old rulesets. I've just read through the ML traffic about PR#8455, but suspect I'll have to do that again (gmane threading doesn't work so well on deep archives) to determine the intent of the commit (as the intent of the original patch changed significantly during patch review). I suspect that I'll end up wanting to rewrite bombardment entirely, rather than just trying to fix the nativity quickly, as there are so many deep assumptions buried in the logic and functional composition. Depending on the outcome of all of this, it may or may not be moved inside the unreachableprotects guard. -- Emmet HIKORY ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
