Follow-up Comment #4, bug #21403 (project freeciv):
> It's not guaranteed that the extra will pop up back, for
> example if city has new owner who does not know required
> tech to rebuild it
Good point -- in my world, the can-we-pillage test would have to include
"would this extra currently be automatically added to a city center".
However:
> (destroying railroads before losing city)
...that doesn't allow for this scorched-earth strategy. Hm.
> or, in case of some potential uses of extras by ruleset
> author, is not to be penalised by bad extra
It does allow this, though (you liberate a city with a Rat Citadel due to the
previous owner's "Government", "Slob", "Player" administration, and have to
clean it up).
> OTOH the case where it does pop back up should work in a
> more reliable way than "next time new tech is discovered"
> -> new ticket
I've raised patch #4408 for my previous suggestions, maybe it covers this too.
(As usual with requirements, it's not practical to test *all* transitions, so
we have to pick the most useful ones.)
> Maybe we need to give ruleset author control over this,
> as it would be nice to protect user from pillaging "always
> pops back up" -extras.
I'm not sure what semantics it would have, since requirements specification is
driven by current state and not transitions.
I suspect that the only practical way to allow the scorched-earth thing in a
way we developers won't break in future is to add the extras via Lua script
rather than AutoOnCityCenter -- that way the ruleset author can arrange that
they appear only when a player discovers the *relevant* tech (and only the
first time, in the presence of tech loss).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?21403>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
