[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2741) Removing explicit mentioning of T_OCEAN

["Jason Short via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 20:52, Cameron Morland via RT wrote:
> 
> [guest - Tue Jan  7 14:53:05 2003]:
> 
> > [jdorje - Tue Jan  7 07:36:58 2003]:
> > 
> > > What is the purpose of this change?
> > 
> > If we are ever going to really make it possible for people to use the
> > terrain specification in the ruleset then we can't mention specific
> > terrain types in the code.  There is no reason that one couldn't have
> > different types of ocean with different resources, different specials,
> > and different effects on ships (certainly the real world has this). 
> > Really we need a flag in the ruleset to say whether a terrain type is 
> > a sort of ocean or not, but it will be much quicker to fix that after
> > Cameron's patch than before.
> 
> What she said. :) I'd like to experiment with such changes, in
> particular with having a distinction between continental shelf and deep
> ocean, but I don't want to have to change all these places at the same
> time as the interesting patch.

Good answer.

I had considered that having different oceanic types might be desirable
for a civ3 ruleset or when using a civ3 tileset.  In the tileset, there
are three layers of oceanic terrain (called something like coastal,
shelf, and ocean).  In the ruleset, certain ships can only safely travel
on certain types of terrain, and trade routes (that use the same
technology as those ships) will only go over those same types of
terrain.

AFAICT coastal tiles are those adjacent to land, shelf is adjacent to
coastal, and ocean is adjacent to shelf.

This is not fundamentally different from what we have now.  Triremes
can't go more than one space from land, just like in civ3.  And with a
quick hack to the client it would be possible to display different
levels of ocean just by checking their distance from short.

But I can see that putting all this into the ruleset is desirable.

jason