Work on tile extra features has now reached the state where we no longer have hardcoded number of special "slots". One can define new extras like any other ruleset objects.
Term "special" now has meaning in editor only - it has separate tools for specials, bases, and roads, like it used to. It places any extras that are neither bases nor roads under specials.
There's one patch that can act as example of extras. patch #4131 adds Oil Well that's like Mine, but is used instead of latter on Glacier and Desert tiles, and has different gfx.
Changes in what a 2.6 rule set can do
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
There has been minor patch series to support third kind (in addition to Land "Barbarians" and Sea "Pirates") of barbarians: "Animals". If ruleset defines them, some of them appear when game starts on the terrains they are defined for. They cannot conquer cities, and they usually don't ("never" in current implementation) leave their home terrains.
-
Alien Valkyrie
- Elite
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Woohooo! Will there also be something to allow them to reproduce on their own or will we have to do that with lua scripting?cazfi wrote:There has been minor patch series to support third kind (in addition to Land "Barbarians" and Sea "Pirates") of barbarians: "Animals". If ruleset defines them, some of them appear when game starts on the terrains they are defined for. They cannot conquer cities, and they usually don't ("never" in current implementation) leave their home terrains.
~ AVL
-
GriffonSpade
- Elite
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Now we just need to be able to gain technology when we kill them, and make horses that know the 'riding' tech, and it be otherwise unresearchable 
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Added tech upkeep style "Cities" where upkeep is multiplied by number of cities. bug #19589
Added ruleset control on which situations techs can be gained so that their reqs are not known patch #4415
That is, ruleset can say that player may not steal technologies for which both prerequisites are already known. Separate controls exist for trading techs, and getting them by parasite effect like Great Library does.
Whether restrictinfra setting affects road type is now defined for each road type separately patch #4424
That was already the case in a way that road types flagged "Natural" (River in classic ruleset) were not affected by the setting. Now the control is independent from the "Natural" flag in 2.5, and later versions have only the "Unrestricted" flag ("Natural" road type flag no longer exist as the other use for it has been replaced by extra category "Natural")
Too many new features have been introduced as part of the extras work to be listed here. See "extra_" sections from latest version of classic ruleset terrain.ruleset to see what one can define for extras.
Added ruleset control on which situations techs can be gained so that their reqs are not known patch #4415
That is, ruleset can say that player may not steal technologies for which both prerequisites are already known. Separate controls exist for trading techs, and getting them by parasite effect like Great Library does.
Whether restrictinfra setting affects road type is now defined for each road type separately patch #4424
That was already the case in a way that road types flagged "Natural" (River in classic ruleset) were not affected by the setting. Now the control is independent from the "Natural" flag in 2.5, and later versions have only the "Unrestricted" flag ("Natural" road type flag no longer exist as the other use for it has been replaced by extra category "Natural")
Too many new features have been introduced as part of the extras work to be listed here. See "extra_" sections from latest version of classic ruleset terrain.ruleset to see what one can define for extras.
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Is there any ruleset option to avoid losing techs that create a hole in the tech tree?, in the same way than those options for free techs due to trading or parasite effects.
Is it possible in trunk to define a unit that can not enter in a river unless it is roaded? I know the road system has been remade to allow a great customization, but I'm unable to find the way to implement this case.
Is it possible in trunk to define a unit that can not enter in a river unless it is roaded? I know the road system has been remade to allow a great customization, but I'm unable to find the way to implement this case.
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
There's no way to existence of a road/river/extra to remove nativity of the tile, they can only add it to otherwise non-native terrain. Sorry.bard wrote:Is there any ruleset option to avoid losing techs that create a hole in the tech tree?, in the same way than those options for free techs due to trading or parasite effects.
Is it possible in trunk to define a unit that can not enter in a river unless it is roaded? I know the road system has been remade to allow a great customization, but I'm unable to find the way to implement this case.
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
First patch of the Culture series has gone in: patch #4019.
Accumulation of Culture is controlled completely by effects. There's no enable/disable for culture rules, but one just defines no culture effects to a ruleset that should not be affected by culture. Currently there's just Performance effect, and its value is directly used as culture value of the city. Culture affects player score only. Every 50 points of culture count as one point in score.
Accumulation of Culture is controlled completely by effects. There's no enable/disable for culture rules, but one just defines no culture effects to a ruleset that should not be affected by culture. Currently there's just Performance effect, and its value is directly used as culture value of the city. Culture affects player score only. Every 50 points of culture count as one point in score.
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Changed in Freeciv 2.6/trunk Other players can now establish an embassy to a player with the No_Diplomacy effect.
The reason for allowing an embassy to a player you can't make diplomatic agreements with is that an embassy has other uses than making it easy to meet. It provides intelligence (like what technology a player has) and can have other rules based on it via the DiplRel requirement type. Rule set authors should therefore decide (via the action enabler of Establish Embassy) to permit or forbid it.
Note that the No_Diplomacy effect still has consequences you may not expect.
The reason for allowing an embassy to a player you can't make diplomatic agreements with is that an embassy has other uses than making it easy to meet. It provides intelligence (like what technology a player has) and can have other rules based on it via the DiplRel requirement type. Rule set authors should therefore decide (via the action enabler of Establish Embassy) to permit or forbid it.
Note that the No_Diplomacy effect still has consequences you may not expect.
Re: Changes in what a rule set can do
Changed in Freeciv 2.6/trunk: The Unbribable_Units effect has been removed.
For a while it has been possible the same limits on bribing using the target requirements on action enabler "Bribe Unit". The reason the Unbribable_Units effect wasn't removed before now was that the information in it was used in placed that didn't support getting it from action enablers. (The No_Incite effect hasn't been removed yet since some AI code still use it exclusively. If you use Freeciv 2.6 I recommend starting to think about porting your No_Incite effects to the "Incite City" action enabler)
Wonder how you can port your Unbribable_Units effects to Bribe Unit action enablers? See how the bundled rule sets was translated. I have created a thread about how you can use formal logic (or software that does formal logic for you) to translate it. If you have questions about action enablers the Action Enabler thread is still waiting for its first question.
For a while it has been possible the same limits on bribing using the target requirements on action enabler "Bribe Unit". The reason the Unbribable_Units effect wasn't removed before now was that the information in it was used in placed that didn't support getting it from action enablers. (The No_Incite effect hasn't been removed yet since some AI code still use it exclusively. If you use Freeciv 2.6 I recommend starting to think about porting your No_Incite effects to the "Incite City" action enabler)
Wonder how you can port your Unbribable_Units effects to Bribe Unit action enablers? See how the bundled rule sets was translated. I have created a thread about how you can use formal logic (or software that does formal logic for you) to translate it. If you have questions about action enablers the Action Enabler thread is still waiting for its first question.