[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21999] adv_data_city_impr_calc() fails to consider present==FALSE
Update of bug #21999 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21999 ___ 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] [patch #4671] Move limits on what terrain a spy action can be done from to action enablers
Follow-up Comment #7, patch #4671 (project freeciv): I have read the entire thread (which took me a long time because of my poor English). If I understand correctly, you are requesting here that spy action enablers would be moved to ruleset definition instead of being hard-coded in the server (and maybe client and AI, I didn't check if it matches). I suppose this is a part of series to generalize such actions. Isn't a way to test in a requirement a terrain is native to the unit? If not, this is probably the lack of highest priority for getting your objective. I think the term attack means attack, nothing else, and shouldn't mean anything else. If I remember correctly, only diplomatic unit action uses action enablers at the moment. I suggest that Attack, Help Wonder, Establish Trade Route (and maybe some other) should use the action enablers. After, maybe units able to do these actions would be determined directly in their definition in the ruleset. And then, many unit flags would become obsolete (and I think this would be very easier to maintain, notably to keep server/client/AI synchronized). If writing such conditions using the requirement syntax, why not using some magic lua function? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?4671 ___ 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] Overall direction of ruleset format development
I hope discussion on general principles of the future ruleset format development. I'm first to admit that I've always been actively making ruleset format more complex, for my personal desire to have as much control as possible in my own rulesets. The problem with this is that people who actually want to to ruleset hacking are typically not programmers, but are complaining that our ruleset format is already far to complex for them. Civ2 is used as example where thinghs are easy - and there for instance units have just slots: Unit number x has such and such properties (there is always exactly one unit having Diplomat-abilities, exactly one Paradropping unit...) To ease ruleset development, we've started developing freeciv-ruledit. Gui should hide some complexities of the ruleset format, as well as visualizing them better. Maybe one question you should be asking yourself in ruleset development is can I later add easy-to-use gui to freeciv-ruledit for this?, even though we're not yet adding such features to freeciv-ruledit. I've always wanted to rely on lua as little as possible, and the ruleset simplicity argument is main reason for that. Every time you say lua, one freeciv modpack dies. - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Freeciv licence
On 22 April 2014 22:58, Drake 0dra...@gmail.com wrote: Good day, May I know which are the terms for reusing tilesets' art from freeciv in another project ? All of freeciv is released under GPLv2+, which is in the file named COPYING, except some fonts which have their respective COPYING.font files (though I believe (IANAL) they have strictly less-restrictive license so you can use them as if they were GPLv2+) - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Help
On 29 April 2014 10:03, alexandr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello. May I help you with freeciv developing? Welcome. See http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/How_to_Contribute - ML ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21420] Worklist postponement messages don't consistently support negated requirements
Update of bug #21420 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Status:None = In Progress Assigned to:None = persia Planned Release: = 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: In addition to the improvement messages failing to handle present==FALSE requirements, the unit messages fail to consider anything other than missing technologies. Merging these issues for simplicity of patch management. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21420 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
