Update of bug #22050 (project freeciv):
Status: Fixed => In Progress
Open/Closed: Closed => Open
Planned Release: 2.5.0,2.6.0 => 2.4.3,2.5.0,2.6.0
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #9:
> Re comment #1, what is this check (which is unchanged) for?
> If this ever fails, that's an illegal state, surely regardless
> of cargo, surely? -- the transport has somehow ended up on a
> tile it can't exist on.
I didn't read it as a mistake. However, you are right, this is not a test
related to whether the unit could load. It's only sanity checking. I will
probably make a patch to move this test in more appropriated place.
> Before this fix, had the check been effective, it would have
> completely prevented Helicopters and Carriers from ever being
> on each other, but Helicopters could have carried Dinghies.
> It's as if a complex system of unit classes had been set up to
> exclude this nesting.
> (As it is, the 'forbidden' nesting will be allowed at
> UNIT_LOAD time, but will cause sanity-check grumbling later.)
If I understood correctly, it was allowing (even in sanity-check) Helicopters
loaded onto Carriers and Carriers onto Helicopters.
> If we want to deal sensibly with transport cycles I think we
> should probably do it at ruleset load time (I don't think there
> are any checks on this currently), or just leave it up to the
> ruleset author not to do silly things (I don't think it breaks
> the game engine).
I would say ruleset author shouldn't make silly things... I think that if he
wants the rules you describe, there is not reason to disallow it.
> I think at least some of these fixes should go to S2_4.
I will try to propose a patch for it then.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?22050>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
