[Freeciv-Dev] More flexibilty - was Fantasy Modpack

[Mark Nettle <markn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 27 May 1999, Claus Leth Gregersen wrote:

> > On a different tack, you could actually implement exclusive
> > technologies.  This would be major engine modification, but it would
> > mean that certain technologies simply can't coexist.  If you choose to
> > research such, or you steal such, then you have the option of completely
> > giving up the excluded technology (and all technologies below it in the
> > tech tree).
> >
> > For example, maybe anything more than (say) 3 advances down the
> > Holy/Unholy tree completely excludes its opposite.
> >
> >
> In the fantastic word addon for civ2, they did something like building 3-4
> different tech trees, each rooted in 1 tech. The races was given this root
> tech for starters, and could that way only develop in it's own branch of
> the tree.
> This will only work if:
> You're able to specify a start tech to of the races.
> Remove the ability to steal tech (or remove spys/diplomates).
> If every race have it's own tech tree, then some techs could be copies of
> those from other trees, so techs will be "equal" in the term of
> functionality but will not have the same requirements.
> The great library will not be of any value as max 1 race can have a tech.
> Trading tech shouldn't be possible.

Inintally I thought I'd like more control over tech trees like this. In
fact, I still would like it, but I'll get by with the simple option to
start with. A quick glance convinced me that it should be possilbe to
allow regexp-like prereqs for techs, but it would play hell with  AI,
"goal" techs, and the tree diagrams in the help thingy.

The existing tech tree structure will work for my first run at a fantasy
modpack. I think a high value for researchspeed will do for now. To get
even more fancy, allowing a greater number of techs and/or units might be
cool. From memory, neither of these would work at the moment, but wouldn't
be a major drama to introduce.

Extra buildings on the other hand would be messy. Especially if you want
them to actually do something. Someone mentioned making building.rulesets
more flexible. Sounded like a most interesting project. It ought to be
possible to specify what (most) buildings do in terms of:

* Adds +x or +y% to..
* food/shields/trade/tax/lux/science/happiness of..
* tiles / this city / all my cities / ALL cities IF ..
        * tile has (irrigation/min/road/rail)
        * city has certain building(s)
        * civilization has certain (techs/government)

The you add the various Barracks (I, II, II, Airport, Port Fac) and City
Walls (Coastal Def, SAM, SDI) and only a few of the buildings can't be
covered. Granary, Courthouse, the airlift part of Airports. Some of those
will have to remain hard-coded. I haven't really considered wonders yet.

Lets see to make the above lists more complete:
* add or subtract
* moverate, veteran status, corruption, trireme sinkability,
defense/attack, can be built (Manhattan proj)
* to units:
        * with certain movetype
        * in this city (city walls)
        * produced in this city (barracks)
        * with a certain flag (NUCLEAR for Manhattan)

That covers quite a bit. Others might be able to add more. Looks eminently
do-able - if a lot of work. Is this what whoever it was (sorry this is a
very messy account for me to get/send email to/from) was planning?

        Mark