Placement on friendly carrier incorrectly prohibited

[DanVanAtta]

@ron-murhammer Unfortunately we still have an issue with the fix (1.10.13537) and the new Map-version:

With the attached savegame you can reproduce that placement on friendly carriers is prohibited, provided the friendly carrier does not share the seazone with an own carrier.

On G1 you see that Germany is correctly not allowed to place newly built fighters on the Italian carrier in SZ 112. But it incorrectly is allowed to place its fighters on the Italian Carrier in SZ 113, that shares the SZ with a German carrier.

Britain and UK-Pacific placement is correctly handled as regards to where the economies can place their units geographically. But here we experience the same situation as with Germany, too (see SZ 109, 110 and 39).

CarrierPlace_0a_placed.zip

Originally posted by @panther2 in https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/4480#issuecomment-451641700

[panther2]

@DanVanAtta The headline of this topic is misleading. Placement on friendly carriers must be prohibited. You can only place on own carriers. The problem here is that the engine still incorrectly allows placement on a friendly carrier in case an own carrier shares a seazone with it.

This is aequivalent to the above sentence "... placement on friendly carriers is prohibited, provided the friendly carrier does not share the seazone with an own carrier." That sentence was easier to understand in the context you took it from: "It is correct to prohibit placing on friendly carriers, but the engine incorrectly allows it when an own carrier is present." has been the meaning of that sentence.

I suggest to rename the issue like this: "Placement on friendly carrier is incorrectly allowed"

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. If there is something that can be done to resolve this issue, please add a comment indicating what that would be and this issue will be re-opened. If there are multiple items that can be completed independently, we encourage you to use the "reference in new issue" option next to any outstanding comment so that we may divide and conquer.

[Cernelius]

If you say that something is incorrectly prohibited, does that mean that thing

1. is prohibited in an incorrect way or
2. is prohibited while it should not be prohibited?

What is the correct meaning of the bolded sentence in (English and American) English? 1 or 2?