[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21388] Should city conquered by player with no cities become their new capital?
Update of bug #21388 (project freeciv): Status:None = Duplicate Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #3: Bug #22271 answered this question: now players always get 'savepalace' buildings in this situation. (I'd forgotten about this ticket.) (Bug #22340 discusses whether this goes too far for barbarians. There isn't a ticket about making it optional for humans too, although that ticket does mutter about it. Anyway, too many tickets, let's close this one as duplicate.) ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21388 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21388] Should city conquered by player with no cities become their new capital?
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #21388 (project freeciv): This should probably be generalised for all SaveSmallWonder type buildings. That said, there exists a narrative that supports not granting this under these conditions. When a city containing the Palace, the National Museum, the National Library, etc. is sacked, presumably the attendants save the relevant relics and evacuate to a nearby city, where they show the relics to the authorities, and resume their duties. In the event that a diaspora has been without a base for some time, the relics slowly dissipate (sold for food, lost, damaged due to neglect, stored somewhere safe that becomes unsafe or forgotten, etc.). When a new city is conquered, it takes time and effort to reestablish the institutions (build a new edifice, collect new relics or find the old ones, etc.), so the player needs to invest in building the Palace/Museum/Library/whatever all over again (or do without the benefits that would accrue from the SmallWonder). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21388 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21388] Should city conquered by player with no cities become their new capital?
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?21388 Summary: Should city conquered by player with no cities become their new capital? Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sun Dec 29 00:44:45 2013 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: Currently, if a player has no cities but only units, and they capture someone else's city, it does not automatically become their capital and get a free Palace (there's no code for this around unit_enter_city()). Should it? I think the game does more or less cope with players who have no capital, but in most other situations where this could occur we give the player a free Palace. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21388 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21388] Should city conquered by player with no cities become their new capital?
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21388 (project freeciv): I suppose this might be particularly likely to apply to barbarian players today... ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?21388 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
