bugFreeciv - Bugs: bug #22165, Veteran help could be improved for...

 
 
Show feedback again

bug #22165: Veteran help could be improved for Nuclear units

Submitted by:  Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Submitted on:  Sun Jun 8 19:50:04 2014  
 
Category: docsSeverity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - NormalStatus: Fixed
Assigned to: Jacob Nevins <jtn>Open/Closed: Closed
Release: Operating System: Any
Planned Release: 2.4.3, 2.5.0, 2.6.0Contains string changes: None

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

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

 

Mon Jun 16 22:05:58 2014, SVN revision 25168:

Don't claim veteran Nuclear units with no defence have increased
strength in combat; they don't.

Reported by 'vla22'.

See gna bug #22165.

(Browse SVN revision 25168)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon Jun 16 21:59:52 2014, SVN revision 25162:

Don't claim veteran Nuclear units with no defence have increased
strength in combat; they don't.

Reported by 'vla22'.

See gna bug #22165.

(Browse SVN revision 25162)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Mon Jun 16 21:57:00 2014, SVN revision 25155:

Don't claim veteran Nuclear units with no defence have increased
strength in combat; they don't.

Reported by 'vla22'.

See gna bug #22165.

(Browse SVN revision 25155)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun Jun 15 00:06:05 2014, comment #1:

> Could add an extra check for UTYF_NUCLEAR in the help.

The attached patches do this.

(file #21010, file #21011)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun Jun 8 19:50:04 2014, original submission:

A friend points out that help for Nuclear units currently says:

  • May acquire veteran status.
    • Veterans have increased strength in combat.

But of course nukes' attack behaviour isn't affected by attack strength, and they have no defence, so this isn't true.

Could add an extra check for UTYF_NUCLEAR in the help. That would leave us with just "May acquire veteran status", with no consequence, which is accurate but silly (and the subject of bug #22164).

(Alternatively, I wonder if it's worth adding a ruleset sanity check against units which can get meaningless veteran status?)

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.

 

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

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -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.

     

    Error: not logged in

     

     

    Follow 8 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Mon Jun 16 22:07:43 2014jtnStatusReady For Test=>Fixed
      Open/ClosedOpen=>Closed
    Sun Jun 15 00:06:05 2014jtnAttached File-=>Added trunk-S2_5-nuclear-veteran-combat.patch, #21010
      Attached File-=>Added S2_4-nuclear-veteran-combat.patch, #21011
      StatusNone=>Ready For Test
      Assigned toNone=>jtn
      Planned Release=>2.4.3, 2.5.0, 2.6.0
    Sun Jun 8 19:51:15 2014jtnSummaryVeteran help could be improved for OneAttack units=>Veteran help could be improved for Nuclear units
    Show feedback again

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup