Reject state is relatively bulky: it's a big chunk of struct natstr,
and adds almost 200 bytes per country to xdump nat.
Reject state changes rarely. Rewriting it to disk on every nation
update and retransmitting it in every xdump nat is wasteful.
To avoid this waste, move reject state to its own struct rejectstr.
This is of course an xdump compatibility break. We're not maintaining
xdump compatibility in this release.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
New struct rejectstr is basically empty so far. The next commit will
move reject state from struct natstr to struct rejectstr.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Contact state is relatively bulky: it's a big chunk of struct natstr,
and adds almost 200 bytes per country to xdump nat for deities.
Contact changes rarely. Since we avoid unnecessary updates, it
doesn't change at all unless option HIDDEN is enabled. Rewriting it
to disk on every nation update and retransmitting it in every deity
xdump nat is wasteful.
To avoid this waste, move contact state to its own struct contactstr.
This is of course an xdump compatibility break. We're not maintaining
xdump compatibility in this release.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
New struct contactstr is basically empty so far. The next commit will
move contact state from struct natstr to struct contactstr.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
A country must always be in contact of itself when option HIDDEN is
enabled. The code ensures this by establishing contact whenever a
player logs in, in init_nats(). This is not the proper place. Game
state should be initialized in empfile's oninit() callback, in this
case nat_oninit(). Do that, and drop the putcontact() from
init_nats().
Note that option LOSE_CONTACT only affects contact to other countries:
agecontact() doesn't age the country's contact to itself.
Use the opportunity to initialize contact so that getcontact() works
even when HIDDEN is disabled. Just cleanup, it isn't actually called
then.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
SAIL has issues:
* Sail orders are executed at the update. Crafty players can use them
to get around the update window.
* The route is fixed at command time. You can't let the update find
the best route, like it does for distribution.
* The info pages documenting it amount to almost 100 non-blank lines
formatted. They claim you can follow friendly ships. This is
wrong. They also show incorrect follow syntax. Unlikely to be the
only errors.
* Few players use it. Makes it a nice hidey-hole for bugs. Here are
two nice ones:
- If follow's second argument is negative, the code attempts to
follow an uninitialized ship. Could well be a remote hole.
- If ship #1 follows #2 follows #3 follows #2, the update goes into
an infinite loop.
* It's more than 500 lines of rather crufty code nobody wants to
touch. Thanks to a big effort in Empire 2, it shares some code with
the navigation command. It still duplicates other navigation code.
The sharing complicates fixing the bugs demonstrated by
navi-march-test.
Reviewing, fixing and testing this mess isn't worth the opportunity
cost. Remove it instead. Drop commands follow, mquota, sail and
unsail. Drop ship selectors mquota, path, follow.
struct shpstr shrinks some more, on my system from 160 to 120 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The autonavigation feature has issues:
* Autonavigation orders are executed at the update. Crafty players
can use them to get around the update window.
* Usability is poor:
- The order command is overly complex, not least because it can do
five different things: clear, suspend, resume, declare route, set
cargo levels.
- Unlike every other command involving movement, order does not let
you specify routes, only destination sectors.
- Setting cargo levels can silently swap start and end point of a
circular route, because "this keeps the load_it() procedure
happy". Maybe it does, but it surely keeps players confused.
- Setting "start" cargo levels actually sets the "end" levels, and
vice versa. Has always been broken that way.
- Predicting what exactly autonavigation will do at the update isn't
easy.
* The info pages documenting it amount to almost 400 non-blank lines
formatted. They claim only merchant ships can be given orders.
This is wrong. Unlikely to be the only error.
* Few players use it, and its workings at the update a fairly opaque.
Makes it a nice hidey-hole for bugs. Here are two:
- Unlike the scuttle command, autonavigation happily scuttles trade
ships while they're on the trading block.
- Unlike the load command, autonavigation can load in friendly and
allied sectors.
* It's more than 700 lines of rather crufty code nobody wants to
touch. Thanks to a big effort in Empire 2, it shares code with the
navigation command. It still duplicates load code. The sharing
complicates fixing the bugs demonstrated by navi-march-test.
Reviewing, fixing and testing this mess isn't worth the opportunity
cost. Remove it instead. Drop commands order, qorder and sorder.
Drop ship selectors xstart, xend, ystart, yend, cargostart, cargoend,
amtstart, amtend, autonav.
xdump ship sheds almost half its columns. struct shpstr shrinks, on
my system from 200 to 160 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Cuts size of export files in test suite by a factor of four. Not a
big deal for disk usage, as export files compress very well, and disk
space is cheap anyway. Export files are simply easier to work with
when they aren't full of redundant crap.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
TREATIES has issues:
* Treaties can cover attack, assault, paradrop, board, lboard, fire,
build (s|p|l|n) and enlist, but not bomb, launch, torpedo and
enlistment centers.
* Usability is very poor. While a treaty is in effect, every player
action that violates a treaty condition triggers a prompt like this:
This action is in contravention of treaty #0 (with Curmudgeon)
Do you wish to go ahead anyway? [yn]
If you decline, the action is not executed. If you accept, it is.
In both cases, your decision is reported in the news.
You cannot get rid of these prompts until the treaty expires.
* Virtually nobody uses them.
* Virtually unused code is buggy code. There is at least one race
condition: multifire() reads the firing sector, ship or land unit
before the treaty prompt, and writes it back after, triggering a
generation oops. Any updates made by other threads while trechk()
waits for input are wiped out, triggering a seqno mismatch oops.
* The treaty prompts could confuse smart clients that aren't prepared
for them. WinACE isn't, but is reported to work anyway at least
common usage. Ron Koenderink (the WinACE maintainer) suspects there
could be a few situations where it will fail.
This feature is not earning its keep. Remove it. Drop command
treaty, consider treaty, offer treaty, xdump treaty, reject treaties.
Output of accept changed, obviously.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The other test output files have fixed names, and having just one with
a name that varies with the test name complicates things with no gain.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
