URL: <http://gna.org/patch/?6119>
Summary: Should a "Peace" diplomatic requirement be fulfilled by an "Alliance"? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: sveinung Submitted on: Sun 05 Jul 2015 01:07:40 PM UTC Category: None Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: 3.0.0, 2.6.0 _______________________________________________________ Details: Freeciv 2.6 will include the DiplRel requirement type. Some diplomatic relation requirements requires a diplomatic state. Only the exact diplomatic state it self fulfills it. If "Alliance" is required "Team" won't fulfill it. Should this change? I was fairly fresh to Freeciv development when I created the DiplRel requirement type. There were three reasons for the current design. 1. Diplomatic states like war, armistice, peace and alliance can be ordered. DiplRel can also check for stuff like shared vision, Casus Belli and embassies. I no longer see this as a problem. "Has embassy" already includes "Has real embassy". 2. Diplomatic agreements could be moved to the ruleset. When I created my patch I saw a proposal to do so in the wiki. I haven't seen any work on this. 3. I wasn't familiar with how common it is to specify a range via X present Y !present. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/patch/?6119> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev