It is possible to place ports via expeditions where players can not build them via normal expansion
Bug #1216305 reported by
SirVer
This bug affects 1 person
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
widelands |
Fix Released
|
High
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Case in point is this safe game. The blue player send an expedition which can place a port very near to the red players port in the bottom left corner of the map (this port is currently building, there is an assertion error when it finishes, just speed up the game and wait).
Also, the red player could send out an expedition to place a port at the very same spot, though it can not build one there 'normally' though he owns the field.
Changed in widelands: | |
assignee: | Nasenbaer (nasenbaer) → nobody |
To post a comment you must log in.
Well... this bug is a bit more complicated
First the later part:
> Also, the red player could send out an expedition to place a port at the very same spot,
> though it can not build one there 'normally' though he owns the field.
I checked it over here - maybe I misunderstood you, but actually if I
* load the saved game
* destroy the constructionsite
* switch to the red player
* reconquer the area
-> the red player can construct a port at the very same position.
Anyway the real problem at this point is the handling of enemy territory and military influence. And it seems I did not check this part of the expedition logic close enough.
In the long term (to conquer a foreign islands completely owned by an enemy) there is no other way than implementing an "automatic soldier cleanup troop" which cleans up the enemy territory around the port build space to make space for the constructionsite as well as to defend the constructionsite and the final port.
But we are not yet at that point.
So maybe it would be a wise decission to add a check to the expedition logic that disallows the construction of ports on enemy territory for now.
Any different opinions?