Caedo wrote:Also, I believe the "negated" (and then "present") aren't supposed to be something additional, but a way to generalize and abstract the requirements system, which makes both it and anything dealing with it (such as AI) clearer and less error-prone.
I think it is clear enough that the changes 2.4 -> 2.5 -> 2.6 are entirely cosmetic (i.e. syntax only). The first change (2.4 -> 2.5) was to unify the syntax between the effects file and all the others. The second change (2.5 - 2.6) was to deal with human frailty concerning double negatives.
Adding more complex effect requirement formulae probably wouldn't affect computation time too much, but it would make it significantly harder for AI to understand them.
This has been discussed before. For most situations bard has shown how to do it. But you need an exhaustive list for the negatives - which is in fact manageable in most cases. For examples see the civ2civ3 effects.ruleset. I agree with Caedo (and whomever responded to the original) that adding additional boolean operators would make life difficult for AI (AND auto generated help) - for very little gain - considering the technique shown by bard more or less does the job.