Lexxie wrote:For example, casus belli if someone sentries
"Sentry" is a state without any gameplay effects whatsoever. If you add repercussions for sentrying, players will simply have units skip their turn, every turn. The only thing it changes is making things more cumbersome for players. The same thing applies to Goto orders, where you could instead move the unit by hand every turn, or auto-explore orders, or "Connect with road/irrigation/whatever" orders, and so on and so forth. That's why they're not supposed to have any rule significance – so that they can basically be used as shorthand to reduce the need for micromanaging.
I agree that having more actions and unit states with ruleset-defined effects would be useful, but trying to shoehorn Sentry into that role is bs.
Also, cut out the melodramatic politics-y talk. It doesn't help anyone, it doesn't add to the discussion, the only thing it does is make people take you less seriously. If you have concerns, voice them, but please don't do... whatever this is.
Lexxie wrote:sveinung wrote:User actions can now target tile extras See Feature #918887
You can now make user actions where the action's enablers target_reqs is evaluated against the target tile's extra owner by setting its target_kind to "tile extras". This makes player requirements like local DiplRel requirements and player range target requirements apply to the tile's extra owner.
I'm trying to understand this. Does it mean, for example, you found an enemy buoy in your allied territory, so you can Pillage the buoy without making an incident for pillaging in allied territory? I'm very interested to know an example of this, to think about testing it. Thanks!
I think that is the basic idea, except this is for user actions, i.e. rather than the hard-coded Pillage, this is for things that don't have a regular effect, but instead only trigger a lua script. So you can now make your own actions that depend on the extra's owner rather than the tile's owner.