"Simulation" ruleset (2.5) - v1.0 released

[Alien Valkyrie]

Yes, when buildings are automatically sold due to obsoletion, you do get money.

Also, about balance: the building shouldn't really be too cheap, but if it's more expensive, once it's sold for being obsolete, it will be a source of a lot of money, too much in my opinion. Any idea about how to get around this?

I was going to say this should be possible using lua scripting (script.lua), defining a function to take some of that gold away when that specific building is sold, but it turns out that there is no such signal as "building_lost", so this would require some voodoo coding.

However, things still wouldn't be necessarily balanced if that one building is the only building giving back less gold when selling it, so you'd probably need to expand that to other buildings.

Here's a thought (though I don't know how well the AI would cope with that): Don't obsolete the building, but instead make it a requirement to build a factory. Maybe make the factory a bit cheaper to balance out the Manufaktur's costs. You could lessen its effects with Industrialization and completely deactivate it with a factory. Also, if you're going to do that, you could lower the factory's upkeep by one (again, to balance out the Manufaktur).

Also, while we're at it, I believe you should do this just for forwards compatibility:

Code: Select all

[building_manufaktur]
// ...
graphic   = "b.manufaktur"
graphic_alt   = "b.barracks_i"
// ...

That way, if someone includes a graphic for it in their tileset, they won't need to change your ruleset in order to use it.

[Corbeau]

Good ideas! Thanks!

[JTN]

I was going to say this should be possible using lua scripting (script.lua), defining a function to take some of that gold away when that specific building is sold, but it turns out that there is no such signal as "building_lost", so this would require some voodoo coding.

(Raised hrm #695007 about this. Also it feels like we should give more ruleset control over building remuneration, but I haven't come up with a coherent design for that so haven't raised a ticket about it.)

[Corbeau]

Ok, I spent too much time on adding one building which is basically a minor and not a conceptual change so I'll just drop the code here (feel free to check if I got everything right) and move on to other things. Will update the file later.

The intention:
- Manufaktur costs 40 shields, 1 upkeep and gives 2 shields per turn
- once Industrialization is discovered, Manufaktur stops producing, upkeep remains, output is now 2 Trade (because it's effectively a museum), Factory in a city with M. costs 110 (instead of 140)
- M. is not a requirement for a factory, but it gives a 30 shields discount

Code: Select all

[building_manufaktur]
name		= _("Manufaktur")
genus		= "Improvement"
reqs	=
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Tech", "Monarchy", "Player"
    }
graphic	= "b.manufaktur"
graphic_alt	= "b.barracks_i"
obsolete_by	= "None"
build_cost	= 40
upkeep		= 1
sabotage	= 100
sound		= "b_generic"
sound_alt	= "b_generic"
; /* xgettext:no-c-format */
helptext	= _("\
Increases production in the city by 2 Shields.\
With the onset of Industrialization, it becomes\
a museum and produces 2 Trade instead.
")

[building_factory]
name		= _("Factory")
genus		= "Improvement"
reqs	=
    { "type", "name", "range", "negated"
      "Tech", "Industrialization", "Player", FALSE
      "Building", "Manufaktur", "City", TRUE
    }
(...)
build_cost	= 140
(...)

[building_factory_mf]
name		= _("Factory")
genus		= "Improvement"
reqs	=
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "Tech", "Industrialization", "Player"
      "Building", "Manufaktur", "City"
    }
(...)
build_cost	= 110
(...)

Code: Select all

[effect_manufaktur]
type    = "Output_Add_Tile"
value   = 2
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range", "negate"
      "CityTile", "Center", "Local", FALSE
      "OutputType", "Shield", "Local", FALSE
      "Building", "Manufaktur", "City", FALSE
      "Tech", "Industrialization", "Player", TRUE
    }

[effect_manufaktur2]
type    = "Output_Add_Tile"
value   = 2
reqs    =
    { "type", "name", "range"
      "CityTile", "Center", "Local"
      "OutputType", "Trade", "Local"
      "Building", "Manufaktur", "City"
      "Tech", "Industrialization", "Player"
    }

Also, one general question. With "negate", the nreqs field is basically obsolete, correct?

[JTN]

I think you'll need to give your two Factories different rule_names? (Maybe you already did) The "name" presented to the user can be the same for both, though.

Also, one general question. With "negate", the nreqs field is basically obsolete, correct?

Correct. They will be gone by 3.0.

[Corbeau]

I thought rule_name is optional? At least that's what it says at the beginning of the file...

[cazfi]

I thought rule_name is optional? At least that's what it says at the beginning of the file...

It does default to name so you often don't need to give it, but internally it's not optional. In this case you have to give it explicitly as you don't want both of them to get same value from the same name (ruleset won't load)
Remember to add also separate effects for both types.

[cazfi]

Also, one general question. With "negate", the nreqs field is basically obsolete, correct?

Correct. They will be gone by 3.0.

...but in 2.5 negate does not work for effect requirements as well as nreqs. Especially AI will just ignore the negate flag. This is fixed in 2.6.

[Corbeau]

...and when I think I'm out, they pull me back in Ok, will do

As for this:

in 2.5 negate does not work for effect requirements as well as nreqs

Please clarify "as well".

For the record, I don't care about AIs.

[JTN]

If you don't care about AIs, as I recall, the main thing that used nreqs as a hint was the bit of UI that crosses out Power Plant in your city's building list as obsolete once you have a Nuclear Plant. I think some of the autogenerated help will be a bit odd too if you use 'negated' rather than 'nreqs'. (But I haven't gone back over the old discussion in detail.)