[Freeciv-Dev] Deferred patches

[Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>]

        Hi!

I was waiting for this moment since the feature freeze time! :-)

Here there is the list of mine patches, waiting for inclusion, with a
brief description:

1. luxury-cap. (Civ II compliance)
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200205/msg00201.html
Introduction of a capping to the luxury that can be useful in a city,
(at the moment, 2 x city size).
NOTE 1: Deferred because marked as 'new feature'
NOTE 2: Per said that has to be converted to be 'optional', so that it
can be left out of the default ruleset

In this case, I ask for a final word, I don't want to pollute the ML and
the configuration files or the server options with civ II compliance
options, and so a word before starting to code this as an option, about
where to put this rule and how, would be greatly appreciated.

2. Specialists (Civ II compliance)
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200205/msg00233.html
Starting to take Specialists from the content citizen instead of the
unhappy one, thus giving a penalization to government like republic or
democracy.
NOTE 1: Deferred because marked as 'new feature'
NOTE 2: Ross stated that the AI could not handle this new behavior
properly

Ross: What has to be done to ensure that everything works?
Per: Ross objection was a showstopper for the stable branch, but it also
for the development branch?

3. Corruption-handling (Civ II compliance - and more)
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200206/msg00191.html
In a city with a courthouse, it is possible to have more than 50% of
corruption, unlike civ II, the patch corrects this behavior, and changes
also how other modifier to corruption are handled so that it is easier
to understand how they work.

NOTE 1: Deferred for unknown reason
NOTE 2: Tony said it is worthwhile considering it a bugfix and also the
new handling of the corruption modifiers has some sense.
NOTE 3: Per stated that the he want to maintain the 'more than 50%
corruption behavior'

Per: Is an option feasible in this case? It is the case to reconsider
this matter?

4. empire-size (Civ II Compliance)
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200206/msg00360.html
In the civ II rules, increasing the number of cities, make the citizen
more unhappy. This can be done also with freeciv ruleset by changing the
empire_size_modifier and the empire_size_inc variables. 
I ask to modify them in the civ II ruleset so that freeciv will be more
adherent (but sadly not equal, for which we need a change in the
mechanic of happiness handling) to civ II behavior.

NOTE 1: Deferred because no one has made comment on this

Per: The submitted patch put the limit so that they are similar to the
deity level limits of civ II, if civ II ruleset try to mimic another
level of civ II, say prince level, I can rework them, but I hope to hear
some feedback before trying to find out.

5. corruption-param (Civ II Compliance)
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200206/msg00360.html
In the civ II rules, republic has less corruption than monarchy, so a
modification of the civ II ruleset of freeciv is needed, also other
government like communism and fundamentalism need a correction.

NOTE 1: Deferred because no one has mad comment on this.
NOTE 2: Because of the true isometric map of civ II it difficult to set
the levels to match exactly.

6. audio: 
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200206/msg00357.html
During the process of stabilitazion, a sound.m4 macro has been created,
I've asked to change some of the behavior of the sound interface. 
i.e: the level of the log messages

NOTE : Per left to me the proposal of this patch, but it has not been
applied nor any comment to say why has been posted.



Thanks in advance for any note/comment.

        Davide