> replies to this email from others telling where their features are going 
> would be welcome
I think this should cover it.

Generalized action enablers
Current status: All spy actions are controlled by generalized action
enablers. Most requirements to enable the spy actions live in the
ruleset. Some rough edges remain.

Remaining work:
* Don't use client side knowledge when evaluating action enablers.
* Get rid of hard coded appended requirements
* I hope to make the caravan actions (establish trade route and help
wonder) controlled by generalized action enablers in time for 2.6.
Current strategy:
  - focus on remaining differences between them and the spy actions
when I move spy action requirements to the ruleset.
  - implement features from caravan actions in spy actions

Spy action probabilities
Current status: Some requirement types have meta knowledge. Some spy
actions displays a probability of success. It may be a good idea to
change the display of action probabilities so a probability range is
displayed in cases where the exact probability is unknown.

Remaining work:
* Change to show a probability range(?)
* Some actions don't show any probabilities yet. They should. Wait for
the range format.
* I don't think all requirement types will have meta knowledge in time
for 2.6. It should be added for those most likely to be used.

Generalized actions
Not started. Will probably wait until after 2.6. May in stead add some
new hard coded actions that ruleset authors can play with.

Simplify writing a Freeciv client (Freeciv web, client side AI, etc)
that isn't written in C
What I have done until now (mostly network protocol simplifications)
is small, independent stuff that don't need more work. I won't start
larger stuff unless I believe I can finish it before branching.

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to