patchFreeciv - Patches: patch #4608, civ2civ3 rules: added pre-fortress

Show feedback again

patch #4608: civ2civ3 rules: added pre-fortress

Submitted by:  David Fernandez <bardo>
Submitted on:  Sat Mar 15 04:49:51 2014  
Category: rulesetsPriority: 5 - Normal
Status: DonePrivacy: Public
Assigned to: Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>Open/Closed: Closed
Planned Release: 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.


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

Mon Mar 9 22:35:49 2015, comment #19:

> But it might be simpler to document a non cumulative +33% for
> the airbase, so it is equal than a city without airport.

Raised patch #5925 for this.

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project Administrator
Sun Mar 8 04:24:28 2015, comment #18:

I remember it was intentional. I think because I did not like to see a unit in a city without airport (+33%) regenerating faster than in an airbase (+35%).
The +10% of the Airstrip is supposed to be equal to the -10% lost out of bases (same turns recovering than turns outside).

But it might be simpler to document a non cumulative +33% for the airbase, so it is equal than a city without airport.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sun Mar 8 00:07:23 2015, comment #17:

I think air units in airbases now receive a cumulative 35% HP regen per turn (10% from airstrip + 25% from airbase). Is that intentional?

Jacob Nevins <jtn>
Project Administrator
Thu Jul 17 04:59:59 2014, comment #16:

I forgot to remove the DiplomatDefense from the new pre-base named Airfield, as we did in bug #22188 for the Airbase.
I'll create a new patch.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Thu Jul 10 23:52:39 2014, SVN revision 25487:

Added Trench and Airfield to civ2civ3 ruleset.

Patch by David Fernandez

See patch #4608

(Browse SVN revision 25487)

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue Jun 17 16:00:47 2014, comment #14:

Updated patch for TRUNK:

- Added Trench and Airfield bases, as pre-requisite for Fortress and Airbase, in order to prevent the construction of full bases in one single turn.
- Airbases and Fortresses can be built on river tiles again.

It may look like a complicated way to prevent the construction of fast bases, but I see the alternative bases as a new feature that could be useful in some situations.
For example, when you want to protect a working engineer placed next to the coast, it might be better to use a simple trench that gives some defensive bonus but does not protect from killstack, so it is not a menace for possible disembark of enemy armies.
In the same way, it might be better to build trenchs or aifields in the tiles adjacent to your cities, instead of full fortresses or airbases that could be more dangerous if captured by the enemy.

(file #21069)

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sat Apr 5 12:42:11 2014, comment #13:

I think the simpler solution to prevent workers from building fast fortresses when loaded on triremes is to forbid the construction of bases over rirvers.

I also like the idea to give ZOC to triremes, I'll create a patch with both changes if you agree.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Mon Mar 17 02:51:52 2014, comment #12:

>What if you give Triremes Zoc?

Sounds good, but you could bypass it with one explorer/diplomat in one of the triremes. I think the same tricks would be possible, just a bit harder.
I guess a human player can defend his terrain by placing a fortress in the middle of the river, but I do not expect the ai to do the same, and I do not like to introduce additional disavantages for the ai.

Anyway, I think the current version of civ2civ3 for v2.5 is playable as it is. I guess future changes will go to v2.6.

I find the economical part of the ruleset mostly finished. It has been tested online, and I personally like it offline.

It is the combat system what I do not consider finished, in part due to some of these available trick/exploits.
In part because I made the latest changes with the idea of a future rule where units in open field can get defensive bonuses from adjacent units, or penalties from adjacent enemies (one day I'll open another ticket to try to convince you about this possibility...).
Right now, the combat in civ2civ3 is a bit simplistic, and the chances to win an attack in open terrain use to be 99% no matter the units involved. I still prefer it to classic rules, but online players are not liking some of these latest changes. If we see that offline players agree, I'll create a patch to make v2.6 more similar to greatturn rules that people seem to like.

Thats all for now. See you.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sun Mar 16 22:56:34 2014, comment #11:

What if you give Triremes Zoc? That wouldn't affect them on oceanic tiles where Zoc never applies, but while sailing the river, even adjacent enemy units could stop it.

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun Mar 16 22:42:07 2014, comment #10:

It is not really a bug, it is the way the trireme works when movement on river is enabled, and I don't really know how could it be improved.

These are the issues I see related to triremes moving on rivers:
- you can use a river to unload units like you do in a city, without being affected by "slow invasion".
It makes rivers better places to disembark than other coastal tiles and it encourages counter-intuitive tactics, like the construction of fast fortresses.
- you can use a river to cross the enemy border with the trireme, and the loaded units will not lose one movement point as they do when moving on land.
I like it for other transports, I just find it too powerful for ancient triremes.
- you can move the trireme 3 tiles along the river, and when it finish, the loaded unit can move another 3 tiles along the same river. It encourages micromanagment and chaining of triremes that I do not like.

I don't know if there is a reason for a bug report, I just don't like some aspects of this feature, and I wonder if it is worth to keep it enabled in the ruleset.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sun Mar 16 10:41:05 2014, comment #9:

> The triremes seem to ignore the enemy border

If that's not because of the rules definitions, please open a bug and attach savegame from which to reproduce.

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun Mar 16 04:09:13 2014, comment #8:

I see. Then I guess there is no hurry for the trunk patch. I personally like to keep both versions the same, at least until I can finish my tests with v2.5.

Anyway, let me point here the 2 possibilities I see to exploit this fortress hole, in case there is an alternative solution:

1) You use a pile of 3 engineers (with 2 movement points) to move to an enemy tile that cost 1 mp (plains, desert...), and the remaining mp is used to finish the fortress.

2) You use triremes to move 3 workers to an enemy river. The triremes seem to ignore the enemy border, and also to bypass the "slow invasion" option, so you can use the mp of the workers to finish the fortress.

3) In long turn games there are many other situations because the movement of workers/engineers is increased. And I guess they will keep using his own version with pre-fortress.

In some online games they removed the capability of triremes to move in rivers because it is a source for this kind of exploits, and I think it might be a good decision.

For S2_5, why don't we change the default turn mode from concurrent to alternate? I suppose it'd avoid this kind of problems related to fortresses and fortified units, at least in single player.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sun Mar 16 01:26:28 2014, comment #7:

> Said that, I think this pre-fortress is needed both for single
> and multi-player.

Ok, but for TRUNK only. In S2_5 savegame compatibility must be maintained both ways (and savegame with pre-fortress built wouldn't load to older version)

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat Mar 15 23:03:41 2014, comment #6:

I see your point, Bardo. It's hard to embrace all the different types of game with one ruleset, like single-player, multi-player, short-turn and long-turn.
Having fortress not claiming any land border seems to me too to be the preferable choice, since the ruleset will have to cover all the possible types of game.

Davide Baldini <davide_at_debian>
Sat Mar 15 21:58:01 2014, comment #5:

This would be an alternative solution to pre-fortress when/if implemented: patch #4555

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sat Mar 15 21:47:11 2014, comment #4:

Thanks Davide, since your games are the main source of feedback, I'll try to make the rules here as similar as possible to the ones you use there. But keep in mind that the version here is supposed to be designed to enjoy single player games (with space race enabled, non-concurrent turns against the ai, etc).
The way I see it, when I enable the claim border for the fortress, I can use it to steal terrain from the AI, even when we are at peace, and they do not consider it a threat, so I find it important to keep it disabled in single player.

Said that, I think this pre-fortress is needed both for single and multi-player. Else, you can stack pile your units with lot of engineers, move them to enemy territory and build a fortress at end of turn, that will appear finished at start of next turn, when it is time for the ai to attack you. It is an exploit that bypass the killstack rules, and makes it rutinary and boring to conquer the ai cities. I try to avoid it in my games as a house rule, but I think it is important to fix it in the ruleset.

>Reading the patch I also wonder if all the reqs are correct: Trench requiring Airfield & Airbase? (though it seems to be illegal range "Tile")

Oh, I'll check it. I added that condition to avoid trenchs or fortress in the same tile than airfields or airbases, and it seems to work in my tests. I'll make a version for trunk and I'll try to fix it.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sat Mar 15 20:35:52 2014, comment #3:

Thanks Bardo for posting this patch here at Gna.

At Greatturn we also have a rationale behind the border claimed by trench and fortress.
In [this discussion] we came to the conclusion that, if trench has border_sq = -1, then fortress should have border_sq = 1, otherwise the game would turn in a big spoil, as explained by Ifaesfu on the linked thread.

Davide Baldini <davide_at_debian>
Sat Mar 15 08:06:50 2014, comment #2:

> When this ruleset is used online

This is related to what I wrote in patch #4602 - is civ2civ3 single-player or multiplayer ruleset? So far I've considered it more like replacement of single-player classic ruleset. As such, addition of pre-bases making unnecessary complication to single-player game is not a good idea.

Reading the patch I also wonder if all the reqs are correct: Trench requiring Airfield & Airbase? (though it seems to be illegal range "Tile")

Marko Lindqvist <cazfi>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat Mar 15 05:00:41 2014, comment #1:

The patch also disables the happy borders option (it was a bug to keep it enabled).
As explained in the readme, fortresses and airbases can be used to avoid military unhappiness inside national borders too.

David Fernandez <bardo>
Sat Mar 15 04:49:51 2014, original submission:

When this ruleset is used online, they always add this pre-fortress to prevent the construction of fortresses at end of turn that will appear finished at start of next turn.

I made a similar pre-airbase named Airfield, because Airbases were set to avoid killstack in latest versions.

I also added requirements to avoid airbases and fortresses built in the same tile.

Tested with S2_5. The trunk code related to bases has changed and I'll need some tests to apply these changes safely.

David Fernandez <bardo>


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

Attach File(s):

Attached Files
file #21069:  civ2civ3-prebases.patch added by bardo (9kB - text/x-diff)


Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found


Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by jtn (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by davide_at_debian (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by cazfi (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by bardo (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
    Thu Jul 10 23:52:53 2014cazfiStatusReady For Test=>Done
    Sat Jul 5 15:27:43 2014cazfiStatusNone=>Ready For Test
      Assigned toNone=>cazfi
    Tue Jun 17 16:00:46 2014bardoAttached File-=>Added civ2civ3-prebases.patch, #21069
    Sun Mar 16 01:26:28 2014cazfiCategoryNone=>rulesets
      Planned Release=>2.6.0
    Sat Mar 15 04:49:51 2014bardoAttached File-=>Added civ2civ3-prefortress-S2_5.patch, #20343
    Show feedback again

    Back to the top

    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup