[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Update of bug #21507 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #28: Your patch is now in Freeciv trunk (2.6). Congratulations! ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #20, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I think it's as Sveinung said in comment #13: each unit has a zone of control (comprising all the tiles around it). Most existing usage of the term is correctly plural because it's talking about other units' zones effect on your unit. So, in the help message This unit has no zone of control, [...] I think the singular is appropriate. However, would This unit imposes no zone of control be clearer? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #21, bug #21507 (project freeciv): _So, in the help message This unit has no zone of control, [...] I think the singular is appropriate. _ I would argue that since unit does not affect single cell, but all cells around it plural is more appropriate. Since singulare can create some kind of illusion that some cell around unit is more special than other cells around that unit, but that is not true. All cells around unit have controll, as they are all cells, thus no zones. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #22, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I like to contradict here. First of all, it's zone, not zones. Every and each player (representing a nation) has one zone of control, which is imposed by his units and cities. So, neither units have their own zones of control nor has unit zones of control or 'cells' of control or tiles.. If at all you can say, all tiles that are being controlled by a player's units, make up for that's players zone of control (abbrv. ZOC¹) For ZOC rules, it makes no difference from what and why. That said, as of now, all land units and all occupied cities impose a zone of control. Some special units ignore zones of control of other, even non-allied players. With this patch, some land units do not impose a zone of control any more. So you can say, This unit does not impose a zone of control where the article a is filled in for convenience. Christian btw what's the diplomat in a city? ¹ freeciv-2.4.2$ grep -R -l -I ZOC * | wc -l 68 freeciv-2.4.2$ grep -R -l -I ZoC * | wc -l 7 freeciv-2.4.2$ grep -R -l -I ZoC * ai/default/aitools.c ChangeLog client/goto.c common/aicore/path_finding.h common/aicore/path_finding.c data/flags/salish.svg server/advisors/advgoto.c ² data/helpdata.txt ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ Nachricht gesendet von/durch Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #23, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Calling whole map spanning non contiguos cells as single zone of controll seems to be a strech. As most often there are multiple disjoint sets of cells under controll by certain player I do not see how singular is appropriate here. Also this is all irrelevant to gamplay. What matters in game are *cells*, one cell = one zone. One unit controlls multiple cells thus multiple zones. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_control eveb though page title is singular article talks about cells in plural. And tiles are what matters. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #24, bug #21507 (project freeciv): However, would This unit imposes no zone of control be clearer? I think it sounds better. All cells around unit have controll, as they are all cells, thus no zones. You have the same problem with plural. A user that is told that a unit has zones of control may think it controls multiple unconnected zones. (Can I place a zone of control on the map and assign it to a unit? Does the location of the zones depend on what direction my unit is facing? Where are the blind zones that separate the zones of control? Are the tiles next to my artillery canon part of one of its zones of control or do they all start at some minimum range?) How about This unit imposes no zone of control on its adjacent tiles? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #25, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Well whatever I give up on this semantic. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #26, bug #21507 (project freeciv): New version * generated help text: has no zone of control - imposes no zone of control as Jacob suggested * generated help text: Specify that it imposes no zone of control on its adjacent tiles to avoid confusion. (file #20089) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: HasNoZOC_v5.diff Size:7 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Update of bug #21507 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress = Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #17: The status of this patch just changed to Ready for test. It can therefore be committed in 36 hours unless anyone objects. Do you want to make the above changes your self or should I do it? I did the changes my self. Hope you don't mind. (I will specify what I changed in the commit message to make it clear who is to blame if my changes cause any problem) My (minor) changes: * Added separation line to is_my_zoc() * Made rule set documentation comments aligned with the other * zones of control = zone of control Since that isn't the case I withdraw the rename request. The flag name was therefore kept. (file #20079) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: HasNoZOC_v4.diff Size:7 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #18, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I would suggest consulting with jtn (as he is native english speaker) on 'zones of control = zone of control' becaus really zones seems more approporiate and consistent with ignores zones of controll. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #19, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I would suggest consulting with jtn (as he is native english speaker) Great idea. jtn: Any comment on (unit has) zone of control vs zones of control? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #16, bug #21507 (project freeciv): (...) the way I understood HasZOC was my own brainfart following from the knowing internal workings of the code too well. Reading your feed back caused me to assume the existence of some foreign language with a mapping of the English term has that could produce the confusion you mentioned among its native speakers. Since that isn't the case I withdraw the rename request. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #21507 (project freeciv): _I think Windows users are actually our biggest end-user group nowadays. And for casual Windows user notepad and wordpad are the only ASCII editors._ First I would find quite unlikelly that casual user would be editing rulesets, second even assuming that. Separate file for help still seems like way way better alternative, its much easier to switch between windows than to repeatedly scroll up and down. And if one opens the same file in two windows, one can as well have two different files open. _Maybe changing the flag name to something that makes it obvious which way it works is in order. People have already confused existing ZOC flags. CausesNoZOC? Existing flags could (in separate ticket) then be renamed as NotAffectedByZOC (or NotSubjectToZOC) for consistency._ Has and Causes, same as Ignores and NotAffected are almost identical with regards to clarity (besides neve ever I head such use causes zones of control, not affected is less odd, but still totaly clear in my opinion), only second ones are much longer so I do not see a need for change. And there always exists help and manual, thus frankly such discussion seems kinda useless. _You mean changing the rulesets, or is there something missing in ruleset format level?_ No there is special C code as sveinung said. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Has and Causes, same as Ignores and NotAffected are almost identical with regards to clarity (besides neve ever I head such use causes zones of control, not affected is less odd, but still totaly clear in my opinion), only second ones are much longer so I do not see a need for change. And there always exists help and manual, thus frankly such discussion seems kinda useless. You can argue all you want that it's user error when they get it wrong, but it's still *our* time wasted when we explain things to those who are wondering why it doesn't work the way they expect. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #21507 (project freeciv): _In the auto generated help text: zones of control = zone of control_ No just a line above: _Ignores zone*s* of control._ And it is used like this in most places, if you still do not agree you can chage it. _In the auto generated help text: missing space between it (before your line break) and will (after the line break)._ Fixed _You forgot a space in the indention after your broke the if statement_ Fixed _data/helpdata.txt should be updated_ Fixed _You forgot the tab on the same line as the flag in the rule set documentation comments._ I'm ether unable to udnerstand or dicern what you want here. I checked .ruleset files my formatting is consistend with all other flags. @cazfi (+ _Marko is right that the flag name could be clearer._) _You can argue all you want that it's user error when they get it wrong, but it's still our time wasted when we explain things to those who are wondering why it doesn't work the way they expect._ If you see it as more clear change it, but I do not see it as being clearer in any way, but it is longer thus makes rulesets more cumbersome to read/write. Also never seen such use (Causes (no) ZOC, besides I think causes has more temporal meaning), but I definetly have seen Has (no) ZOC. As for users they should be refered to manual, that should be kept consistent with workings. But this is so called biksheding It is trivial for you to rename a flag if you see it's name as unclear. (file #20035) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: HasNoZOC_v3.diff Size:7 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #12, bug #21507 (project freeciv): One style nitpick: is_my_zoc() has no empty line between variable declarations (only ounit there) and functional code. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Update of bug #21507 (project freeciv): Category:rulesets = general Planned Release: = 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #13, bug #21507 (project freeciv): And it is used like this in most places The unit has a zone of control that includes all the tiles it controls. One enemy unit has a zone of control. Many enemy units have zones of control. A unit with IgZoc ignore the zones of control of all enemy units, not just the zone of control of one enemy unit. I'm ether unable to udnerstand or dicern what you want here. The other lines have a tab. If you see it as more clear change it, I do. I didn't notice the possible confusion until Marko pointed it out. He has a lot of experience talking to confused users. Marko noticed another white space issue in comment #12. Do you want to make the above changes your self or should I do it? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #14, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Seems like I sent my previous comment a bit early. Sorry. The unit has a zone of control that includes all the tiles it controls. But do I realize you could argue that one tile is one zone. The other lines have a tab. A tab between the name of the flag and = ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I added new patch with comments reidented, and included rescription in all rulesets. I also have some comments, suggestions: why use inconsistent indentation in code and rulesets (code - spaces over tabs, ruleset tabs over spaces)? I see no point in having flag descriptions/ruleset help copied in multiple places. It seems only thing it does is polute changelogs, and additional work to add changes in all places(which also increases chance for errors/mistakes). I think we can presume that anyone writing rulesets is using normal editor (vim, emacs etc have multiple windows buffers) or IDE (mostly have tabbed interface) and not ms notepad or such, thus there is little advantage in having flags at the top of the file when you can simply have separate tab/buffer open with all explanation. If you agree with this I open new bug and let me know I can do such minuscule changes. As for ruleset, lets say it is for testing (though I myself tested it with classic). But to be fair I'm fairly confident that this flag is *very sensible* for most non military units, and would strongly suggest considering adding it classic if not all rulesets. Also I think with this there is no reason to have speceal treatment of zoc for air and water units, but thats other discussion. (file #20018) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: HasNoZOC_new.diff Size:6 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Update of bug #21507 (project freeciv): Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = sveinung ___ Follow-up Comment #4: I added new patch with comments reidented, and included rescription in all rulesets. Thank you. Assigning this ticket to my self. That makes it my job to review and, if accepted, to commit your change. I also have some comments, suggestions: I'm not a native English speaker. Please assume that I intended to be polite and friendly if I got the tone wrong. Let me know if something isn't clear or if I misunderstood you. why use inconsistent indentation in code and rulesets (code - spaces over tabs, ruleset tabs over spaces)? The long term goal for the code is spaces everywhere. When only changing something small in a differently formatted section using the surrounding white space style is OK. The reason you shouldn't change white space for areas you don't modify is that it will make it more difficult to back port bug fixes. I assume this applies to rule sets as well. I see no point in having flag descriptions/ruleset help copied in multiple places. The point is that people should be able to fork any bundled rule set and still have it documented. The disadvantages you mention are the price we pay for this. I think we can presume that anyone writing rulesets is using normal editor (vim, emacs etc have multiple windows buffers) or IDE (mostly have tabbed interface) and not ms notepad or such Non programmers that modify Freeciv rule sets do exist. We can't assume they know how to take advantage of advanced text editors and IDE's. I'm fairly confident that this flag is very sensible for most non military units, and would strongly suggest considering adding it In that case you may wish to file a patch ticket in our patch tracker that makes a rule set start using the flag. (I suggest starting with one rule set to keep the task smaller) Some advice on what to consider when you argue for a rule change: * What will your change do to the game balance? (What strategies will become possible/easier/harder/impossible because of it?) * How will it impact current users? (Will old save games work? Will it confuse existing players?) This is more important for old and popular rule sets that have been stable for years than it is for new and unpopular rule sets that change often. * Will your change help/hinder rule set specific goals? (The goal of the civ1 and civ2 rule sets is the be as close to the original games as possible. If a rule set has a README it may be a good idea to have a look at it) * If you identify problems you should of course explain why the benefits of the change makes them worth it. Also I think with this there is no reason to have speceal treatment of zoc for air and water units That may be a candidate for generalization[1]. But, like you said, that is another discussion. [1] Generalization = to move hard coded rules to the rule set ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21507 (project freeciv): and not ms notepad or such I think Windows users are actually our biggest end-user group nowadays. And for casual Windows user notepad and wordpad are the only ASCII editors. Maybe changing the flag name to something that makes it obvious which way it works is in order. People have already confused existing ZOC flags. CausesNoZOC? Existing flags could (in separate ticket) then be renamed as NotAffectedByZOC (or NotSubjectToZOC) for consistency. Also I think with this there is no reason to have speceal treatment of zoc for air and water units You mean changing the rulesets, or is there something missing in ruleset format level? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21507 (project freeciv): You mean changing the rulesets, or is there something missing in ruleset format level? I don't know what he meant but zoc creation has a hard coded rule that ignores the zoc if the source tile or the target tile is_ocean_tile(). See common/movement.c: can_step_taken_wrt_to_zoc(). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Review of file #20018 * Marko is right that the flag name could be clearer. * In the auto generated help text: zones of control = zone of control * In the auto generated help text: missing space between it (before your line break) and will (after the line break). * You forgot the tab on the same line as the flag in the rule set documentation comments. * You forgot a space in the indention after your broke the if statement ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #21507 (project freeciv): review of file #20018 I missed one. Sorry: * data/helpdata.txt should be updated ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21507 (project freeciv): Thank you for your patch, Edgaras. I had a superficial look at it. I was planning to go in depth before giving feed back. Since I haven't done that yet I figured it was better to list the issues I was able to spot so you at least got some feed back. * Documentation comments should be added to all the rule sets present in Freeciv trunk (2.6), not just Classical and Experimental. * Please align you documentation comments with the other flag documentation (tab vs space) * Is the rule set patch intended to help us test you patch or do you suggest changing the Experimental rule set? If you suggest changing Experimental it may be a good idea to create a separate ticket (under Patches) for that change. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Edgaras Šeputis wrote on Jan 18, 13:30 (+0100): I find it very annoying how accidentaly or not your early settlers can be pined down by exploerer. I see no reason why workers, settlers and exploerers should have ZoC, but nether any reason why they should ignore it when it comes from military units. Any way even if it's not in default ruleset such options should definetly be made availabe. I thnik of an explorer or diplomat as an agile, small (single) unit which is used and trained to move in its environement mostly unseen, avoiding contact and ready for escape. This complies with does not respect ZoC of others. Indeed, they would be rather unable to their job if they did. For the complement, arise ZoC, you have some point. But then, ZoC ist all-common for land units and represent terrain control. With the newer borders implementation, this may have changed. ZoC outside of your nations territory is for military control. Workers, settlers, explorers and the like must be protected or are on their own. Since terrain work supports the winning team, it makes sense not to kill them. If they arise ZoC, it can be necessary to have them out of the way. Special case of respect no Zoc is the ability to punctuate enemy's ZoC by following your explorers with military units on the step. I find no good reason for this ATM. Christian Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 -- Christian Knoke* * *http://cknoke.de * * * * * * * * * Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum. ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21507 (project freeciv): I created patches for this feature. Firs one is implementation of feature itself. Second one is change to experimental ruleset, I added this new flag HasNoZOC to units for which I think it is approporiate. Though description of the tag in ruleset files is present in both patches, hope it isn't too much trouble. Posting to the right bug this time... (file #19949, file #19950) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: HasNoZOC_main.diff Size:4 KB File name: HasNoZOC_ruleset.diff Size:2 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ 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 #21507] Finer controll of ZoC
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 Summary: Finer controll of ZoC Project: Freeciv Submitted by: morphles Submitted on: Sat Jan 18 12:30:02 2014 Category: rulesets Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: 2.4.1 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: ZoC are currently very coarse. Havent checked if one could add them on naval or air units, and I think there should be such ability if there aren't, but I digress. Main point, you can have on unit: no ZoC - unit has no ZoC and ZoC does not affect him (naval, air mostly) ignore ZoC - unit has ZoC, but ignores ZoC of others (diplomat, spy, explorer) normal ZoC - has ZoC, respects ZoC of others, standart However, there is no flag for: has no ZoC - does not create ZoC, respects ZoC of others (imo very suitable for most non military units) I find it very annoying how accidentaly or not your early settlers can be pined down by exploerer. I see no reason why workers, settlers and exploerers should have ZoC, but nether any reason why they should ignore it when it comes from military units. Any way even if it's not in default ruleset such options should definetly be made availabe. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21507 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
