Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 1999:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Default/optional entries in rulesets
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Default/optional entries in rulesets

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Default/optional entries in rulesets
From: sebauer@xxxxxxxxxxx (Sebastian Bauer)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:03:22 +0100

Hello David

> created.  With your suggestion there could be lots of
> different "partisan" units, and multiple conditions 
> (as far as techs at least) when they are created.  
> (What happens if multiple rules "trigger"?)

The best is used. That means the higher the id is the
better is the unit.
We could also mix the different partisans, to make
the problem more complicated ;-)

> This is more complicated for the player, and in some ways 
> also for the code, since have to go through and check lots 
> of possibilities instead of just one, and keep track of
> more data.

Yes, that's clear. But it's doable.

>> If we don't do it's unpossible to have more than one partisan
>> unit.
> Sure, but will anyone actually want/use multiple partisan 
> units anyway? :-)

No idea ;-)

> 1. Single partisan_req, single unit.
> 2. Single partisan_req, multiple units.
> 3. Multiple units, each with own partisan_req.

> Number 3 is more general, true, but also more complicated, and 
> I just wonder if it is worthwhile.

Probably not at the moment. That's why I let the comment in game.h.
But I will do it somewhen because it's fun ;-)
and helps me to understand the whole code better.

But this really is not the most important what have to be done. I
think the next step would be now to generalize the building.ruleset.
This is a little bit harder than the techs.ruleset. Have you already
an idea for the new ruleset?

bye,
Sebastian Bauer


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]