[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2013-10-08 Thread Jacob Nevins
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #16913 (project freeciv): Note that 'aifill' can be out of synchronization, when setting high number on a ruleset with very low nations. I've had a go at 'aifill' under bug #21179. I'm not sure about the specific symptom reported here, but I've fixed some cases where

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2011-06-15 Thread David Fernandez
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #16913 (project freeciv): Patch has changed the behaviour a bit on trunk: now the AI Skill Level dropdown starts out with no default (which is a bit more honest). I confirm this behavior in revision 19760. However, if you start a game and then you leave it, the AI

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2011-03-25 Thread Jacob Nevins
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16913 (project freeciv): Patch #2573 has changed the behaviour a bit on trunk: now the AI Skill Level dropdown starts out with no default (which is a bit more honest). ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2011-02-17 Thread Jacob Nevins
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #16913 (project freeciv): See also bug #17749. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?16913 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2010-10-20 Thread anonymous
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?16913 Summary: Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List Project: Freeciv Submitted by: None Submitted on: Thursday 10/21/2010 at 02:55 CEST Category: None

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16913] Bug: AI Skill Level differs from Scenario loaded AI on Player List

2010-10-20 Thread pepeto
Update of bug #16913 (project freeciv): Category:None = client-gtk-2.0 Priority: 5 - Normal = 1 - Later ___ Follow-up Comment #1: As for bug #16444,