[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Follow-up Comment #6, bug #21235 (project freeciv): I am using vanilla 2.4.2 on windows. I do not have patch #4515 But the bug is no longer occurring when I test it without the patch. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #21235 (project freeciv): This error message seems to be generic for various unrelated problems, for example http://gna.org/bugs/?20952 The error message I got earlier and reproduced the first time I tested it is no longer occurring. The action that caused the bug initi

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21235 (project freeciv): > I too am getting the server warnings. Which version? This is significantly improved in patch #4515 since latest stable release 2.4.2. Otherwise the problem in fixing this bug is that it's not simple coding bug: it's fundamentally a design bug

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #21235 (project freeciv): This error message seems to be generic for various unrelated problems, for example http://gna.org/bugs/?20952 So I will open a new separate bug report. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21235 (project freeciv): Has this ever been fixed? I too am getting the server warnings. See http://civland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=953 ___ Reply to this item at: __

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21235] Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT'

Update of bug #21235 (project freeciv): Summary: AI error report => Multiple assert 'ai->phase_initialized || game.info.phase_mode != PMT_CONCURRENT' ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Maybe duplicate of bug #20686, though