Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stop disbanding units under UWT when bouncing them #2052

Merged

Conversation

lmoureaux
Copy link
Contributor

When a unit affected by unit wait time was bounced, the generated move order was rejected by the move handling code. As a consequence, the unit ended up being disbanded.

This affected units doing terraforming work (e.g. turning land to ocean). This forced players to issue the terraforming orders at least UWT seconds before TC, which forced them to connect at specific times of the day. Since one of the goals of UWT is exactly to avoid this constraint around TC, adding a similar constraint around TC - UWT is the opposite of good.

When a unit affected by unit wait time was bounced, the generated move
order was rejected by the move handling code. As a consequence, the unit
ended up being disbanded.

This affected units doing terraforming work (e.g. turning land to
ocean). This forced players to issue the terraforming orders at least
UWT seconds before TC, which forced them to connect at specific times of
the day. Since one of the goals of UWT is exactly to avoid this
constraint around TC, adding a similar constraint around TC - UWT is the
opposite of good.
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwrober jwrober left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

works for me

@lmoureaux lmoureaux merged commit 6bc9bb5 into longturn:master Nov 22, 2023
19 of 20 checks passed
@lmoureaux lmoureaux deleted the bugfix/terraforming--disbands-unit-uwt branch November 22, 2023 02:03
@lmoureaux lmoureaux added the back-port back-port candidate label Nov 22, 2023
@lmoureaux
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also added to backport list, I think it's important to have in the next 3.0 release

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
back-port back-port candidate
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants