Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] city_landlocked_sell_coastal_improveme

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] city_landlocked_sell_coastal_improveme

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Freeciv Developers ML <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] city_landlocked_sell_coastal_improvements generalisation (PR#1105)
From: Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 31 Aug 2002 09:00:36 +0200

On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 03:26, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2002, Ben Webb wrote:
> >     Here's a modified version of the landlock patch. It now uses the
> > "nice" impr_type_iterate macro to iterate through all improvements (in a
> > recently-landlocked city) that are candidates for auto-selling. The
> > logic is a little more general now; previously when a city became
> > landlocked, only buildings that required Ocean tiles were sold, whereas
> > now buildings that require one of a selection of terrain types (e.g.
> > terr_gate = "River", "Ocean") are also sold if the removal of Ocean
> > tiles now means thatnone of the terrain types are available.
> Why should this be done automatically? And if it should be done

Selling has to be automatic, I don't want to go and sell all my building
or worst, to confirm I've seen the popup window! Anyway, a message
window entry can be useful, if it is optional.

> automatically, why should it be sold and not lost without compensation?

I see at least 3 reason:

1. If you are aware of what is going to happen, you can send the
improvement before it is 'ripped', thus preventing the loss without
compensation (such a thing was one of the most annoying part of civ1,
where you need to remember to sell all your barracks before the
discovery of gunpowder and combustion)

2. Compensating means that you will never lose money, and thus players
would enjoy their improvement, instead of not building them or better
instead of selling them immediately after they get them (by conquering
an AI city, for example)

3. From an AI point of view (as you say afterwords) it easier to manage
the possible loss and thus such a danger (lost of an improvement) is not
part of the necessary control code (Thus simplicity).

> (This would be nice for the AI, though.)
> Yours
> Per
> "I don't see why people are so upset about cloning sheep. American
> television networks have been doing that to their audiences for years."
> -- Jello Biafra

        Ciao, Davide

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]