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

[Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2001/08/20 09:09 , Ben Webb wrote:
>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.

Sorry.  I mis-read you.  My fault.

It's great that this is getting some attention.  I just haven't had time.  :-(

jjm