[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#15809) Remove (ig)tired

["Daniel Markstedt" <himasaram@xxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=15809 >

> [badamson@xxxxxxxxxxx - Sat Mar 11 20:29:43 2006]:
> 
> Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> ...
> > Would it be very difficult to leave a backwards compatibility server
> > option for a few versions..?
> ...
> 
> If we allow an option, we have the same amount of code to maintain, even 
> if the default ruleset does not use the option. But if the default 
> ruleset does not use an option, the option will rarely be tested and its 
> code will eventually rot. So there is an argument for discarding options 
> that few would want to use.
> 
> And I think the converse argument holds: if the game has an option, we 
> should support it well; in particular, the AI should handle it well. The 
> bombardment and game-loss flags stand out as particular current problems 
> in this respect.
> 
> 

These are arguments that makes sense from a programmer's point of view.
The players on the other hand will be left wondering why they can't make
the game behave like it used to.

At the point where the code has started rotting and no one cares (i.e.
no bug reports from concerned players) it should be safe to just remove it.

About "cross-settling"; IIRC this is a 'feature' of the 1.14 line (and
possibly earlier) where you got optimal research output when placing
cities around the capital in the shape of a cross. According to certain
ppl on the forums, this is one of the main reasons many 1.14 players
didn't made the jump to 2.0.

-Daniel