[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: Modified can_build_improvment()

[Ben Webb <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Jeff Mallatt wrote:

> At 2001/08/20 08:55 , Ben Webb wrote:
> >     If this is true then, IMHO, it's a bit silly. I _think_ you can
> >build the equivalent of a Barracks when you have the equivalent of the War
> >Academy in Alpha Centauri (which FreecivAC aims to come close to). Again
> >IMHO, it's handy to have a redundant Barracks in strategic cities in case
> >your Wonder is captured or destroyed. But anyway, the whole point of
> >impr-gen is to generalise the building of city improvements. Some modpacks
> >may well want to use the equiv_dupl behaviour as well as the equiv_repl -
> >it's not enough to say that "standard" Freeciv doesn't "need" both, since
> >standard Freeciv does quite happily with hard-coded buildings. Anyway,
> >it's very easy to handle the distinction between equiv_dupl and equiv_repl
> >in code, so I don't think it's worth removing one or the other.
>
> The whole point of rulesets is to get rid of hard-coded things.

        I thought that was exactly what I'd just said. ;) Apologies if it
wasn't clear; my point is that even if you don't _need_ both for current
Freeciv rules (although IMHO you do) we should support them for the sake
of ruleset flexibility. My aim, since I'm trying to adapt Freeciv to a
substantially different set of game rules (Alpha Centauri) is to get rid
of all the hard-coded behaviour with buildings and their effects.

        Ben
-- 
ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://bellatrix.pcl.ox.ac.uk/~ben/
"The Belle of New Orleans tried to show me once how to tango"