Another TODO from civ1 ruleset, about Transport Embark action enabler:
; TODO: was transferring from a transport to a transport on an adjacent tile
; legal?
Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
Yes. Just tried ship-to-ship transfer, with success.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?
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
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.
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.
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
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.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.)
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.)
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
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:
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.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
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
Some recently opened tickets related to posts in this thread:
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/42923
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43039
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43040
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43042
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/42923
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43039
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43040
https://osdn.net/projects/freeciv/ticket/43042
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
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(?).
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
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.
'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.
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
Someone else. But you do have a point because this WAS only relevant to the ticket.IIRC your earlier argument for not updating tickets was that you don't want to create an account.
Perhaps it is time for me to actually make a comment: my view is that matters of interest to the wider community should be discussed in a public place rather than hidden away. Although physically accessible, the nature of the ticketing system is of interest only to developers, especially considering the cryptic nature of the few comments that are ever made.
As an example I can cite the case of Traderoute_Pct. The comment I made was "There is a glitch: someone forgot to tell the client about the effect "Traderoute_pct"." There was a ticket raised on this (perhaps for other reasons), but the fix in fc2.6.5 was ONLY for 1 of the 3 places where this problem was evident in the client. If this was discussed more openly I would have said something. (In addition to the summary, there is the tool tip and the popup. So my apologies: at the time I thought this was obvious.)
Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2
First of all; I appreciate your input. Following it not meant to dismiss it.
The other side is that developers are not implementing things or fixing bugs they don't know about. Someone needs, at some point, enter the stuff to the ticket system. It would be better if it wasn't additional workload for me. As I've recently stated elsewhere, I already spend well over 1000 hours a year developing freeciv, and that's not enough to properly cover all the tasks that I would have. I hardly even follow things in this forum. The civ1 tickets I recently filled were about things you wrote years ago.nef wrote:Perhaps it is time for me to actually make a comment: my view is that matters of interest to the wider community should be discussed in a public place rather than hidden away. Although physically accessible, the nature of the ticketing system is of interest only to developers, especially considering the cryptic nature of the few comments that are ever made.
How would I know that ticket in question was a "matter of interest to wider community" that should be taken to some other forum, unlike hundreds of other seemingly similar bugs we handle? It often seem rather random to me what issues people start making fuss about (very serious ones go without anybody caring, trivial glitches bring angry comments and people marking severity as "critical" like it would absolutely block people from playing the game; equivalent to regular server crash)nef wrote:As an example I can cite the case of Traderoute_Pct. The comment I made was "There is a glitch: someone forgot to tell the client about the effect "Traderoute_pct"." There was a ticket raised on this (perhaps for other reasons), but the fix in fc2.6.5 was ONLY for 1 of the 3 places where this problem was evident in the client. If this was discussed more openly I would have said something. (In addition to the summary, there is the tool tip and the popup. So my apologies: at the time I thought this was obvious.)