## Response to alliance requests
Previously the way nations responded to alliance requests was quite
simple / boring / exploitable. Basically you couldn't ally them if you
had a bad relation with them, or if you had too many alliances.
Otherwise they would just take it.
Now there is a **complete decision tree which is based on the
difficulty**. The nations should also feel more human now.
For example, just like humans, nations will now consider to take an
alliance even if you have a bad relation with them (If you are a
threat).
Also, nations no longer check if YOU have too many alliances. Now they
do what humans do: Check if THEY have too many alliances (they want to
be able to attack somebody).
Another big change is the default case: Previously it was just `return
true`. Now it's `return isAlliancePartnerSimilarlyStrong`. So they do
what humans do: Take a quick look at their troop count before allying
them.
## Sending alliance requests
Previously alliance requests were sent randomly. Quite boring.
Now we use the same decision tree as for responding.
## Alliance extension requests
They also use the same decision tree.
## Tests
Tested it a lot in singleplayer.
I have planned to add unit tests for all the nation/bot stuff in the
upcoming cleanup phase.
## Please complete the following:
- [X] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [X] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [X] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [X] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
FloPinguin
## Description:
This PR fixes a critical race condition bug where players could
unintentionally receive the traitor debuff when alliance requests were
accepted mid-attack.
Critical Bug Fixes#1866
**Root Cause:**
Players could bypass UI alliance checks ( isFriendly() ) by accepting
alliances and immediately attacking after that, causing the server to
treat the attack as betrayal
Solution: Added server-side alliance validation in
AttackExecution.init()
This ensures attacks on allies are blocked at the server level.
- Once Bots and Nations decide to attack, they breaks the alliance. I
added maybeConsiderBetrayal(), which currently always returns true. I’ll
add proper logic for alliance-breaking soon on another PR; this didn’t
exist in the code before.
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
abodcraft1
---------
Co-authored-by: evanpelle <evanpelle@gmail.com>
## Description:
**--Fix oversight in v24--**
In v24, alliance renewal was introduced. But a Bot or Nation never
answers to it. So the Event Panel expiration message + clicking to Renew
and waiting, is all in vain if the other player is not a human. Like in
Single player in all cases. The message after ~30 seconds is always
"Alliance with xxx expired". This feels illogical and there's no purpose
for showing a Request to Renew button if it then always expires.
Also reported by players like here:
https://discord.com/channels/1284581928254701718/1284581928833388619/1398249123093676094
This PR fixes it by having the non-human reciever of the request, say
yes to depending on attiude towards the human and chance. This feels
more realistic.
The requestor is always the human player because they click a button in
EventsDisplay. So there is always already an extension request which the
bot can react to with another extension request to have the alliance be
extended.
**--Add tests--**
It adds tests for extending alliance between human and non-human player.
One for AllianceExtensionExecution simply testing if alliance between
human and non-human can be extended. And one in BotBehavior, testing if
it correctly handles an extension request by adding a new
AllianceExtensionExecution.
**--Fix silent bug in existing test--**
Adding the new test for human and non-human for
AllianceExtensionExecution, i ran into a bug in the existing test for
extending alliance between humans. Which made the test always pass
because expirationAt wasn't fetched correctly. Had to fix that too,
without intending that for this PR beforehand. And then had to include
the bugfix from PR #1582 (v25) in it too to have the alliance actually
extended. More details below:
(-- The existing test would always return 'all passed' because it did
not get the expiresAt() but got the createdAt +
config.AllianceDuration() for both expirationBefore and expirationAfter.
createdAt is immutable so before and after would be the same. And then
it did not test for toBeGreaterThan, which would have failed. But it
tested wrongfully for toBeGreaterThanOrEqual which was a pass even when
the expirationBefore and expirationAfter would be the same and no
extension had taken place.
-- The bugfix from PR 1582 needed to be included now too. Because only
with those changes, the existing test has its alliance truly extended
and only with that the expirationAt actually changed. Actually, checking
if extend() was called isn't needed anymore, since we now check the
expirationAt correctly which on its own tells us if extend() was
succesful. But left this addition from PR 1582 in since it can't do any
harm.)
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [ ] I have read and accepted the CLA agreement (only required once).
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
tryout33
---------
Co-authored-by: evanpelle <openfrontio@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Drills Kibo <59177241+drillskibo@users.noreply.github.com>
## Description:
- Create a new expand ratio that allows AI players to expand with a much
lower reserve ratio than the normal attack reserve ratio.
- Unify the implementation of the first attack between bots and nations.
- Bugfix: Multiple attacks per tick could cause nations to full-send.
- Improve the chance of finding a place to boat to by allowing nations
to target non-shore land tiles.
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [x] I understand that submitting code with bugs that could have been
caught through manual testing blocks releases and new features for all
contributors
## Description:
Remove Cosmetics from PlayerInfo. The game engine should have no
knowledge of cosmetics since they shouldn't affect game play at all.
Instead pass player cosmetics into the GameView.
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [x] I understand that submitting code with bugs that could have been
caught through manual testing blocks releases and new features for all
contributors
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
evan
## Description:
Move map generation outside of main repo, it has been rewritten in Go
and is much faster. Also refactor how maps are stored, one dir per map.
The map binaries are basically identical to before. Some maps like
Africa have 1% difference in bytes, but playing it looks exactly the
same.
Use lazy loading for map data access so only needed files are accessed.
Unit tests now load map binary instead of regenerating it from scratch,
speeding them up.
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [x] I understand that submitting code with bugs that could have been
caught through manual testing blocks releases and new features for all
contributors
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
evan
## Description:
This is meant to give players more customization options.
Permission handling hasn’t really been implemented yet.
## Please complete the following:
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [x] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [x] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [x] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [x] I understand that submitting code with bugs that could have been
caught through manual testing blocks releases and new features for all
contributors
## Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or
regression is found:
aotumuri
## Description:
The method deciding whether bots should accept an alliance used to use
multiple variables with negated names (notTraitor, notMalice,
notTooManyAlliances). For readability, I have negated their value in
order to given them a positive name (isTraitor, hasMalice,
tooManyAlliances).
I have also added tests for the alliances acceptation/rejection behavior
of bots.
- [x] I have added screenshots for all UI updates
- [X] I process any text displayed to the user through translateText()
and I've added it to the en.json file
- [X] I have added relevant tests to the test directory
- [X] I confirm I have thoroughly tested these changes and take full
responsibility for any bugs introduced
- [X] I understand that submitting code with bugs that could have been
caught through manual testing blocks releases and new features for all
contributors
Discord: nephty
FloPinguin