Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [2 x Patch] struct government + unit upkeep

[Mark Nettle <markn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, David Pfitzner wrote:

> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> 
> > Keep in mind that the governments might be given different names in a
> > modpack, so try to work with the names of government-type technologies
> > actually loaded, rather than with the hard-coded constants. 
> 
> Good point.  I don't see any problem, since the names are included
> in the new struct, and could be handled the same as for units etc.
> 
> Though a good goal would be to remove the "enum government_type"
> so that nothing depends on the hardwired governments.  That is/was
> a goal for units/techs too (but not practical for buildings until
> after some (planned) generalisation), though not fully achieved yet.
> Of course this all makes AI government choice more difficult...

Easy option: flags for AI like we have for units
"[Expansion|Warfare|Trade][OK|Good]"

Harder option: code to look at all the govt types loaded and work out
which is best for current situation.

> > Since goverments=techs in the current implementation, one of two
> > suggestions might be profitable:
> > 
> > a) add a flag to techs.ruleset, indicating that the flagged tech is a
> > government type, or
> > 
> > b) divorce the governments=techs association, leave techs.ruleset
> > unchanged, and let governments.ruleset specify a technology that is
> > required before you can select that government type (i.e., treat
> > governments as something you can "do" with a technology, just like
> > buildings and units).
> 
> b) Seems the obvious way to go to me.  Governments are separate
> things from techs, it just happens that for some of them you need 
> to research a given tech first, in which case specify that tech
> in the ruleset file.  (Or, at the moment, hardwire the tech id
> in the government struct, which is equivalent to the current 
> situation.)

I think so too.

Oh, and Sune, thanks!

        Mark