bugFreeciv - Bugs: bug #20886, Fortresses can be used to take...

 
 
Show feedback again

bug #20886: Fortresses can be used to take over territory within peaceful neighbour's city radius

Submitted by:  Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Submitted on:  Tue 11 Jun 2013 08:41:17 AM UTC  
 
Category: NoneSeverity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - NormalStatus: None
Assigned to: NoneOpen/Closed: Open
Release: Operating System: Any
Planned Release: 

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Sat 25 Jan 2014 01:35:24 PM UTC, comment #11:

Since this turned out to be a can of worms, removing targets for now, and relinquishing ticket -- someone else feel free to grab it.

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project Administrator
Sun 25 Aug 2013 12:21:10 PM UTC, comment #10:

> There's also the question if whatever limitations we implement should apply to beginning of the building, finishing of the building, or both.

I see that tech loss and terrain change (caused by climate change) will check if unit activities can continue. Perhaps the same should be done when diplomatic relationships change?

On the other hand the diplomatic relationships has the potential to change quite often in games with many players. Iterating over all units each time the relationship between any two players change may be to expensive. I'm not qualified to say if it is worth the performance cost.

Limiting the check to only local DiplRel requirements (and therefore the units of the two players involved) is inconsistent but less expensive.

Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik <sveinung>
Project Member
Tue 20 Aug 2013 05:57:29 PM UTC, comment #9:

There's also the question if whatever limitations we implement should apply to beginning of the building, finishing of the building, or both. That is: what if diplomatic relation between players change while building is in progress?

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project Administrator
Tue 20 Aug 2013 05:14:35 PM UTC, comment #8:

Attached patch is 100% rule set based. It is primarily intended as a contribution to the discussion.

  • Transfer of ownership to border owner isn't addressed. (It may be possible to create an effect or requirement vector on the extra to trigger the transfer. Creating that should probably wait until extras have settled down)
  • The patch will only work on trunk. It adds requirements about the diplomatic relationship between terrain owner and the builder as build requirements of border claiming bases.

The patch forbids building terrain claiming bases on the terrain of players you have peace or armistice with. Others are still allowed. I don't have strong feelings about what relations should prevent base building. My reasoning for the requirements I added: Building on the terrain of an ally may be needed to defend him. Cease-fire expires to war so some stealing is expected. Armistice expires to peace so stealing isn't expected.

(file #18721)

Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik <sveinung>
Project Member
Sun 04 Aug 2013 07:48:58 PM UTC, comment #7:

>> Then again, maybe building the fortress should be always
>> allowed, but the change is made to who owns the fortress in
>> the end.


> That only makes sense with allies.


You mean that if one builds fortress within peaceful borders, one should get the fortress and borders. I think it's your action of building the fortress for peaceful nation that may not make sense.

Naturally, if you're in war, you would still get the fortress for yourself. to sum the proposed code change: If territory-claiming base is built within borders of someone builder is not in war with, owner of the base will be that border owner, not builder.

Note that this DOES have some not-so-obvious consequences when there's already some other base on the tile. If owner of those is builder of the new base, (s)he will lose all bases to border owner.

Anyway, this is not a regression since 2.3, so could, or at this point: should, wait to 2.4.1.

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project Administrator
Thu 18 Jul 2013 11:38:47 AM UTC, comment #6:

> Then again, maybe building the fortress should be always allowed, but the change is made to who owns the fortress in the end.


That only makes sense with allies.

Goswin von Brederlow <mrvn>
Wed 17 Jul 2013 12:35:32 PM UTC, comment #5:

> how do you "prevent" (without killing the builder) peaceful player from building the base


Even allied countries do not completely trust the military units of others. This is typically handled with a SOFA [Status Of Forces Agreement] treaty, that spells out what activities are allowed and specifies penalties for violations.

> Then again, maybe building the fortress should be always allowed, but the change is made to who owns the fortress in the end.


I think this is a better solution.

David Lowe <doctorjlowe>
Fri 12 Jul 2013 04:26:45 AM UTC, comment #4:

- One should be able to build fortress at least when in war. It's not uncommon for me to build fortress as beachhead to enemy island (preferably to spot enemy cannot see even if it's within borders) for no-stack-death especially. Then I can ship attackers there as much as I want (= as long as I want with limited transport capacity).

- I don't think comment #3 makes sense when this is about preventing building fortress to peaceful nation - how do you "prevent" (without killing the builder) peaceful player from building the base

Then again, maybe building the fortress should be always allowed, but the change is made to who owns the fortress in the end. Maybe fortress should be considered owned by the border owner by default, and then same rules applied as when unit enters empty fortress - you can take enemy fortress but not allied (you shouldn't be able to take peaceful fortress, but I'm not sure if anybody has ever considered that case in implementation) For one, that would allow one to help allies by building fortresses (not so far-fetched idea in our slow-research games where ally may be far from learning Construction while I already have it and want to stop common enemy)

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project Administrator
Fri 12 Jul 2013 04:01:45 AM UTC, comment #3:

As a longturn player I dislike this new change. In longturn we already have a pre-fortress base that prevents the sudden building of a fortress in enemy territory. It gives time for the territory owner to destroy the construction before a fortress is built.

Please add a ruleset option so that this change can be turned off

Anonymous
Thu 11 Jul 2013 02:25:45 PM UTC, comment #2:

No, that isn't ok. Building a fortress steals land and that is perfectly fine in war.

Please add a check for the diplomacy status.

Goswin von Brederlow <mrvn>
Wed 10 Jul 2013 12:22:24 AM UTC, comment #1:

Attached lightly-tested patch which simply disallows building territory-claiming bases in others' territory.

I haven't gone for checking diplomatic state, so even if you're at war with someone (or indeed allied), you now can't build fortresses in their territory, just the same as you can't build cities. Is that OK?

(For trunk only so far, haven't tried backporting it, but I think this should go to stable branches too.)

(file #18226)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project Administrator
Tue 11 Jun 2013 08:41:17 AM UTC, original submission:

From mrvn on IRC:

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project Administrator

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 1024 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #18226:  trunk-restrict-territory-claiming-bases.patch added by jtn (3kB - text/x-patch - trunk r23022)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by sveinung (Updated the item)
  • -unavailable- added by doctorjlowe (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by cazfi (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by mrvn (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by jtn
  • -unavailable- added by jtn (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follow 11 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Sat 25 Jan 2014 01:35:24 PM UTCjtnStatusIn Progress=>None
      Assigned tojtn=>None
      Planned Release2.3.5,2.4.1,2.5.0,2.6.0=>
    Tue 20 Aug 2013 05:14:35 PM UTCsveinungAttached File-=>Added banBorderStealingWhenPeace.patch, #18721
    Sun 04 Aug 2013 07:48:58 PM UTCcazfiPlanned Release2.3.5,2.4.0,2.5.0,2.6.0=>2.3.5,2.4.1,2.5.0,2.6.0
    Wed 10 Jul 2013 12:22:24 AM UTCjtnAttached File-=>Added trunk-restrict-territory-claiming-bases.patch, #18226
      StatusNone=>In Progress
      Assigned toNone=>jtn
      Operating SystemNone=>Any
      Planned Release=>2.3.5,2.4.0,2.5.0,2.6.0
    Tue 11 Jun 2013 08:44:47 AM UTCjtnCarbon-Copy-=>Added mrvn
    Show feedback again

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup