Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21403 (project freeciv): > It's not guaranteed that the extra will pop up back, for > example if city has new owner who does not know required > tech to rebuild it Good point -- in my world, the can-we-pillage test would have to include "would this extra currently be automatically added to a city center".
However: > (destroying railroads before losing city) ...that doesn't allow for this scorched-earth strategy. Hm. > or, in case of some potential uses of extras by ruleset > author, is not to be penalised by bad extra It does allow this, though (you liberate a city with a Rat Citadel due to the previous owner's "Government", "Slob", "Player" administration, and have to clean it up). > OTOH the case where it does pop back up should work in a > more reliable way than "next time new tech is discovered" > -> new ticket I've raised patch #4408 for my previous suggestions, maybe it covers this too. (As usual with requirements, it's not practical to test *all* transitions, so we have to pick the most useful ones.) > Maybe we need to give ruleset author control over this, > as it would be nice to protect user from pillaging "always > pops back up" -extras. I'm not sure what semantics it would have, since requirements specification is driven by current state and not transitions. I suspect that the only practical way to allow the scorched-earth thing in a way we developers won't break in future is to add the extras via Lua script rather than AutoOnCityCenter -- that way the ruleset author can arrange that they appear only when a player discovers the *relevant* tech (and only the first time, in the presence of tech loss). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/bugs/?21403> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev