Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Do you want to help out with Freeciv development? Then check out this forum.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby cazfi » Sat May 29, 2021 3:33 am

Another TODO from civ1 ruleset, about Transport Embark action enabler:

; TODO: was transferring from a transport to a transport on an adjacent tile
; legal?

User avatar
meynaf
Veteran
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:27 am
Location: Lyon / France
Contact:

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby meynaf » Sat May 29, 2021 6:56 am

cazfi wrote:Another TODO from civ1 ruleset, about Transport Embark action enabler:

; TODO: was transferring from a transport to a transport on an adjacent tile
; legal?

Yes. Just tried ship-to-ship transfer, with success.

Ignatus
Elite
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:05 pm
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby Ignatus » Mon Jul 05, 2021 5:52 pm

A thing CivII has: when it places a player's starting location, it runs some procedure to estimate its worth and tries to find the best one available. If this location is not good enough, the game compensates it gifting more starting techs. (So the last player placed usually starts as the most advanced; also, if you start with many techs, you should get ready for discovering poor terrain around.)

Yet another CivII feature: switching from a wonder to a space part does not reduce prod stock. I know that space parts have their own genus in newer versions but I don't know if genera switching cost is adjustable.

One more thing not done yet: you can have only one caravan per city loaded with a given good other than food or Hides; moreover, if you have founded a traderoute with a good, loading new caravan with it is blocked for a while (cleared each 16th turn or when a caravan helps wonder in this city). I have put some more thorough description of CivII trade somewhere in the forum.

nef
Hardened
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby nef » Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Ignatus wrote:A thing CivII has: when it places a player's starting location, it runs some procedure to estimate its worth and tries to find the best one available. If this location is not good enough, the game compensates it gifting more starting techs. (So the last player placed usually starts as the most advanced; also, if you start with many techs, you should get ready for discovering poor terrain around.)


Similar for Civ I (I believe) but not so prominent - maybe Civ I was better at finding good places for everyone. Also the Civ II fora are replete with stories about extra settlers. I have a vague recollection that this may have happed occasionally with Russians in Civ I.

In any event fc mapgen is an absolute monster. I WILL have more to say about this sometime in the next month or so. (I have a project ready to redact but it slipped down my todo list. What I can say is that it does a reasonably good job taming the beast - I have been road testing for about a year now - it required a LOT of heuristics.)

Ignatus
Elite
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:05 pm
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby Ignatus » Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:14 pm

Don't remember where I have questioned the visibility rules of commercial games compared to ours, but that's what I've found on CivII forum:
you know how when you run a sub into another, it takes two clicks to attack: one when you hit it, and it appears, and another to attack
Submarines can not see each other without it, even being adjacent (Destroyers can see adjacent subs). In CivI, units can see adjacent subs but only naval and air ones.


nef
Hardened
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby nef » Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:52 pm

Just a point of clarification on ticket `41 (referenced by `42). There was a follow up discussion about the temporary fix using fire power and hitpoints of 2 but I can no longer find it so a key point may be lost. The problem was NOT the "(the Pearl Harbour rule)" as defined by the unit flag "BadCityDefender" since this is already in fc2.6, but rather, a non native attack (from ship to land) reduces the fire power of BOTH attacker and defender to one thus resulting in a battle where one of the units can survive with damage (HP = 1). This was THE reason for removing the "DamageSlows" flag (`40), but the problem remained that one or two turns to repair was still required. In fact, `40 would be moot if not for it being more timely than `41(?).

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Postby cazfi » Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:10 am

Yeah, sloppy writing (hadn't thought it through) in '41. There are several cases where firepower is set to 1, and all of them should be handled, in a consistent manner. Pearl Harbour rule was more like an example.

'40 is more of a ruleset cleanup than something that is supposed to have functional effect (the *point* is that the DamageSlows flags should not be functional in civ1 ruleset)

You do know that we have even anonymous commenting with osdn? IIRC your earlier argument for not updating tickets was that you don't want to create an account.