Bug #846784: An existing building may not fulfill impr_req - Freeciv - HostedRedmine by Planio

HostedRedmine.com has moved to the Planio platform. All logins and passwords remained the same. All users will be able to login and use Redmine just as before. Read more...

Actions

Send by e-mail Copy link

Bug #846784

closed

An existing building may not fulfill impr_req

Added by Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik about 5 years ago. Updated over 2 years ago.

Status:

Closed

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Marko Lindqvist

Category:

General

Sprint/Milestone:

3.2.0

Start date:

Due date:

% Done:

Estimated time:

Description

An existing building wont fulfill a unit type's impr_req unless the building itself can be built by the player. But the required building may have been build by the city's previous owner or by the current owner before one of its build requirements went away. Example of what this prevents: a ruleset where a unit training building only can be built during peace but can be used to produce units during war.

I think it is too late to change this in 2.6. Is it too late to change this in 3.0 too?

Files

0045-Allow-building-units-even-if-player-wouldn-t-be-able.patch (8.41 KB) 0045-Allow-building-units-even-if-player-wouldn-t-be-able.patch

Marko Lindqvist, 2022-04-12 05:46 AM

Related issues

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist over 4 years ago

Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote:

An existing building wont fulfill a unit type's impr_req unless the building itself can be built by the player.

How does that work with the fact that (second instance of) building can't be built if it already exist?

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 4 years ago

Related to Bug #884993: impr_req for unittype doesn't work for Small Wonders added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist almost 4 years ago

Sprint/Milestone set to 3.1.0

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist over 3 years ago

Blocks Task #673656: S3_1 datafile format freeze (d3f) added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist about 3 years ago

Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote:

Is it too late to change this in 3.0 too?

Any progress with this? Before it's too late for 3.1...

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Marko Lindqvist over 2 years ago

Status changed from New to In Progress
Sprint/Milestone changed from 3.1.0 to 3.2.0

Another six months passed, no reply.

Also looked this once again myself, and I really don't like how unclear the semantics turn in a number of cases -> not a good candidate to get in a stable branch.

Going to both postpone, and to try to finish a patch for master, so it get proper exposure before we're nearing S3_2.

Actions

Copy link