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
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
