[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2507) incite cost patch

["Per I. Mathisen via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Davide Pagnin via RT wrote:
> > > 1. I would like this main incite rewrite to introduce the concept of
> > > "international incident". In civ1 and civ2, when you were peace with
> > > your opponent you were given the option of 'subverting the city' (not
> > > simply inciting it), that will cost twice the gold of inciting and will
> > > not give any reputation penalty to you, nor will end up in Democracy
> > > fall down cause to senate being overruled.
...
> I found this is not a separate issue, because the "action" is the same,
> that is bribing an enemy city and INSTEAD the reputation effect is
> different.

It is a separate issue because it is not necessary, neither for
completion/sanity of code in question nor for game balance reasons. So it
should be considered separately.

Note that I am not objecting to adding reputation loss for inciting
friendly cities to this patch, what I am objecting to is adding subversion
of cities as a diplomat option to this patch.

> > > I suggest a general variable here like
> > > present_unit_incite_cost
> >> it can be boolean or numeric, and will allow/not allow to count present
> > > in city units build cost in the incite cost.
> >
> > I guess a multiplication factor would be better. Zero would disallow.
>
> Agreed:
> 0 : actual default factor, civ1 and civ2 ruleset
> 1 : new proposed default factor
>
> perhaps 2 or more, for modpacks -- scenarios

No, I said multiplication factor. That means you multiply unit costs by
this factor. If you multiply by zero unit costs won't be added.

> This variable MAY be the same for units, wonders and improvement, but If
> we use 3 variables there is nothing wrong.

We already have different value for wonders, so this isn't possible.

> I feel that Courthouse,this way, become very powerful and I don't know
> If this is good or bad, moreover I'm assured that with gen-impr included
> in CVS this behavior isn't HARDCODED in the incite cost function and
> then I can easily modify it through rulesets.

Ok, then Courthouse remains as is.

> Anyway I don't oppose to a a boolean switch
> (happiness_modify_incite_cost), that can switch this on/off.
>
> if (happiness_modify_incite_cost) {
> size = MAX(1, pcity->size
>        + pcity->ppl_happy[4]
>        - pcity->ppl_unhappy[4]
>        - pcity->ppl_angry[4] * 3);
> } else {
> size = pcity->size;
> }

Nah, I'd rather add two more options to make it completely configurable,
if we start going down this road then let's do it properly.

  - Per