URL: <http://gna.org/patch/?4051>
Summary: Diplomatic relation requirement type Project: Freeciv Submitted by: sveinung Submitted on: Tue 30 Jul 2013 06:43:22 PM GMT Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: _______________________________________________________ Details: The diplomatic relation requirement type is about diplomatic relations. The diplomatic relations are "Armistice", "War", "Cease-fire", "Peace", "Alliance", "Never met", "Team", "Gives shared vision", "Receives shared vision", "Embassy from" and "Embassy to". In this patch the ranges "world" and "player" are supported. The world range test if at least two currently living players have the diplomatic relation. The player range test if the player has the diplomatic relation with at least one other currently living player. A local range (or something similar) that test the relationship between two players is not included. It would require lager changes. A solution to corner cases like a tile owned by player1 that has a unit belonging to player2 and another unit belonging to player3 and evaluated for player0 would have to be found. (Test for all? Test for one? Let each requirement vector decide what to do?) Besides: A local range wouldn't be all that useful yet. (I hope to add one in a later patch and use it to generalize the spy actions) The player and world ranges are still useful. Opposition to standing armies in peace time* can be simulated by making war a requirement for building military improvements / extras. People that get happiness from the state of war** can be simulated by a happiness effect. Extra trade when there is (world) peace is also possible. An Intelligence Central could depend on the player having at least one embassy to another player. Another example can be found in broadcaster.patch. This adds a small wonder that give you more gold when you are at war*** and make one citizen content when someone else is at war but you have peace. This is a request for comments. I need feed back on some issues. The first is the names and other strings it adds. Any better suggestions than "DiplRelation", "Gives shared vision", "Receives shared vision", "Embassy from" and "Embassy to"? Could the strings I introduce be better? (I'm not a native English speaker) The next is the code it self. A new enum for asymmetric diplomatic relations that is "after" diplstate_type was added. As the two enums may get a different value for invalid in the future the code is paranoid and only use the asymmetric diplomatic relation enum's invalid. (This is marked in the code) Is being that paranoid correct? * Example: The Anti-Federalists (Anti Federalist papers, Brutus 10) ** Example: The Nazis viewed war as something good *** Example: the people of the USA accepted extra war taxes and bought war bounds during WWII _______________________________________________________ File Attachments: ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 30 Jul 2013 06:43:22 PM GMT Name: diplrel.patch Size: 16kB By: sveinung <http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=18443> ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue 30 Jul 2013 06:43:22 PM GMT Name: broadcaster.patch Size: 2kB By: sveinung <http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=18444> _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/patch/?4051> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev