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

[Ben Webb <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Sebastian Bauer wrote:

> You are probably right, I haven't touched or even looked at the AI code. I
> still think this what can be done step by step should be done step by step.

        Agreed. Unfortunately the AI code isn't the most beautiful code
in the world. There are a lot of hard-coded checks and magic numbers
in there, which IMHO should be calculated from the building effects in the
rulesets. But with my patch I haven't yet touched the AI code. It would
get confused enough with the different government and unit types in Alpha
Centauri anyway.

> But I really like to have a decision *now* about "equiv_dupl" and
> "equiv_repl". My suggestion is the following.
> We let "equiv_dupl" and "equiv_repl" both in the ruleset without changing
> the meaning.

        Agreed - the meanings do seem reasonable, so by all means switch
the fields for individual buildings in the rulesets.

> Of course it is always better to be more general and it seems
> that FreecivAC needs this, I didn't know that this exists and how the rules
> are for this game.

        FreecivAC adds extra features to Freeciv - features that are
included in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) such as the "social
engineering" control (customised government types) and the "design
workshop" (customised unit types). Since all the buildings in SMAC have
different, futuristic names and effects, generalised improvements have
been a main focus for the work so far. (We also have been working on other
exciting things like borders, although opinion is divided on how these
should interact with fog of war.)

Just to remind people of the URL, it's
http://bellatrix.pcl.ox.ac.uk/~stewart/fcindex.html. Don't bother with the
"stable" version, as it's very old now. Get the patches to
"standard" Freeciv instead. More feedback is always welcome.

> I also see the point that it might be useful two build barracks even the
> player had built the academy. But this would then only again require a
> ruleset change, but now I don't want to this because the patch itself
> shouldn't change the real rules at all.

        Yes, that's what I mean. Allow people to change the rulesets to
do this if they want to, but don't change the rules of Freeciv just to fit
the code.

> If nobody complain (please anwer fast then) I will create this patch like I
> suggested and I also try to merge the construction parts of Ben's FreecivAC
> patch so we have at least a generalized construction of building.

        That would be most useful. If such a patch were added in to CVS,
then I could try to tidy up the building effects code a little. (The last
FreecivAC patch to Freeciv was rejected ostensibly for having too many
blank lines and comments in it - well, the current impr-gen patch has
virtually no comments in it...)

        Ben
-- 
ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx           http://bellatrix.pcl.ox.ac.uk/~ben/
"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
        - Ernest (1st Baron) Rutherford