[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Elementarization of Unit Properties

["Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:31:31PM +0100, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > Maybe _you_ don't want it, but I do. ;) You see, a unit with F_UNIQUE,
> > F_GAMELOSS, F_PALACE, F_REQPALACE, F_SPENDPALACE and F_CITIES (yes, all of
> > them) can be a wandering alien motherqueen with a palace hive in her womb.
>
> This makes a lot of sense.  A pre-city 'nomadic' game phase (discussed
> on the list before) can be implemented that way, including the special
> treatment of barbarians (who have leaders instead of capitals).

Interesting ideas.

> Will improvements be units with move cost 0 now?

I don't have any intention of doing that, nor do I know if that is a good
idea (haven't given that idea much thought).

> > (Obviously, the alien player should not lose the game when then queen
> > founds a city, and the Palace itself should have a gameloss attribute.)
>
> You mean, thanks to F_CITIES, improvements can be associated with the Queen
> unit?  This is a little too much I think.

F_CITIES is an existing attribute that enables the unit to found cities.
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't lose the game if you disband a unit
with F_GAMELOSS to found a city.

The association of the queen with the palace is possible using only the
list of attributes given above pluss a game-loss attribute in the
buildings.ruleset for the palace as well (and the palace should have tech
req to NEVER, obviously).

But I'm not going to do anything with these ideas myself until at least
all the buildings generalisation code has gotten into cvs and stabilized,
and probably not until the next spell of holidays :)

Yours,
Per

"What we anticipate seldom occurs: but what we least expect generally
happens." -- Benjamin Disraeli