[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8811) use equiv_range for wonder range

["Per Inge Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8811 >

On Sun, 23 May 2004, Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa wrote:
> > sorry, this should actually be EFR_WORLD. The difference is that
> > equiv_range is with respect to improvement redundancy: i.e. equiv_dupl and
> > equiv_repl. In the definitions of these, s/range/equiv_range should perhaps
> > be done to avoid future confusion.
>
> FYI I consider the current equivalent improvements code, which is used
> to prevent something from being built, as just plain wrong. A player
> should only be prevented from building something if it has already been
> built, was obsoleted, or the requirements for it are not met.
>
> Given this definition, equiv_range as exists now is simply useless.

IIRC it is used to cancel out the effects of buildings in the same
category of buildings, eg Great Wall vs City Wall and Pyramids vs Granary.
I find Vasco's 'effect group' idea neat and a better implementation of
this than the equiv_* fields, and should probably be used irrespective of
which implementation is finally used.

> I have been meaning to ask you people if you think it is important for a
> Wonder to contain effects with different target city ranges or not.

IMHO, it is a nice feature, but not at all necessary, unless we need it to
emulate some other game (SMAC?). New rulesets can be designed around such
a small limitation with ease.

  - Per