On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:50:58AM +0300, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 31 March 2013 08:43, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:02:02PM +0200, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> > > On 30 March 2013 18:42, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > > > [options]
> > > >
> > > > may_road:
> > > > may_irrigate:
> > > > may_mine:
> > > > may_transform:
<...>
> With the requirement of xxx_Possible effects they have effect (sigh) only
> if ruleset author first explicitly adds those enabling effects and then
> uses may_xxx to disable them. Sounds like an odd configuration to do.

    Indeed.  I'll prepare a patch dropping these.

> > > > [parameters]
> > > >
> > > > road_superhighway_trade_bonus:
> > > >     This appears to be used only to store the value in the ruleset and
> > > > send ruleset packets continaing the value, but not in any of the code
> > > > that actually checks the trade value of a square.  For all the shipping
> > > > rulesets that have a "Super Highways", this appears to be managed with
> > > > the Output_Per_Tile effect.
> 
>  S2_3 and S2_4 are the actively maintained branches. S2_4 has been in
> datafile format freeze for a long time, so unless parameter was optional to
> begin with (so that beta1 would load ruleset without one defined) it cannot
> be completely dropped.

    OK.  Two patches then: one against trunk dropping it completely, and one
(or two) modifying the comments in the rulesets for S2_3 and S2_4 to more
accurately indicate to ruleset authors that this value has no effect.

> > > > pollution_* and fallout_*: 
> >     I looked through the mailing list archives a bit trying to find
> > discussion of the plan for extras, without success.  Is there a
> > reference available?
> >
> 
>  It's still mostly in my head only, sorry. The general idea is to combine
> all of specials, bases, and roads, back under one construct, this time
> called 'extras'.

    One aspect of the current differentiation I like is that one is able to
control movement in more detail with combinations of "road" and "base" on
non-native terrain, although this detail could as easily be managed by
abstraction of "road classes" so that one could have different roads with
different benefits share move test aspects or be shared requirements for
the next type of road (this also removes the special case for "Bridge
Building" as one could have two different "road" roads: one requiring
there to be no river, and the other requiring there to be a river and
the player to know the relevant technology).  In combination, this becomes
"extras classes", which might be singular for some rulesets.

    Another complication is that currently one cannot build a base in
a city (and that the building of a city destroys bases).  This makes
trying to define "mine" as a base difficult (irrigation is differently
complicated, because of city-auto-irrigation).

    The above notwithstanding, I'm more than happy to stage some
patches for this (surrounding things like requirements checking, suitable
tiles, effect application, etc.), if it's considered a true goal.  The
limitations on the number of road types and difficulties with cities and
colocated bases are already frustrating as a ruleset author.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY

_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to