Another Wishlist

[GriffonSpade]

A couple ideas regarding 'special cases'

25) Separate the ability to attack from NonNative Terrain into two different qualities: the ability to attack native terrain from nonnative terrain, and the ability to attack nonnative terrain from nonnative terrain. (For example, to prevent a caravel or frigate from attacking land while in a city, while allowing destroyers and battleships to do so.) [Or just a No_Attack_NonNative_From_NonNative flag]

26) Block the ability of road native units(That are on otherwise nonnative terrain) to cross into cities that are not connected to their road type:
Arrows represent current valid moves
Red arrow represents move that would no longer be valid with this change

Untitled.png (98.75 KiB) Viewed 9165 times

[GriffonSpade]

27) effect range "TradeCity" for requirement types Building, Special, Base, Road, Terrain, Resource, TerrainClass, TerrainFlag.
-Trade city would include the range "City" of both the city in question and all of its (direct) trading partners.
-Would be a good option for "strategic resources" so as to not be overly limiting to each individual city, while not being so uncontrolled as to allow cities with absolutely no interaction to gain access to things which require said strategic resources (Player's CityA having iron would not allow CityB to build Legion unless they had a trade route connecting them).
-Possible additional option of a "TradeWeb" range that would include any city linked by trade, namely those which are trading with cities cityX is also trading with, but you are not trading with directly. (CityX trades with CityY, and CityY trades with both CityX and CityZ. CityX would then detect types from not only CityY, but also CityZ)

[JTN]

27) effect range "TradeCity" for requirement types Building, Special, Base, Road, Terrain, Resource, TerrainClass, TerrainFlag.
-Trade city would include the range "City" of both the city in question and all of its (direct) trading partners.

The requirement range "Traderoutes" coming in 2.6 (patch #4459) sounds like it does much of what you want.

[GriffonSpade]

Very nice! You guys works quickly!
You guys do amazing work.

28) Effects that allow cities to become unhappy, for Propaganda style effects. (For example, Statue of Liberty causing those with all government types except Republic and Democracy to experience unhappiness) Applied before Make_Content effects, it would usually simply serve as a reduction to them, which I think is already possible via negative Make_Content. However, it would also allow citizens to become angry if there are no Make_Content effects. [Possibly just create a function that Make_Content values make citizens angry instead if they are negative?]

29a) Effect flags! Similar to the existing, and INCREDIBLY USEFUL terrain and unit flags, for use as requirements in other files, such as buildings, units, and terrain.
29b) Ability for unit/building requirements to need Flags, such as Terrain and Tech flags (and Effect flags).

30) The ability to create a Unit Death unhappiness effect, that creates X unhappiness (ruleset defined) lasts for Y (ruleset/server defined) turns. No one likes when their families die in war, and their deaths should have an effect on their home city's happiness, possibly even leading to riots and civil war. Currently units dying in republic and democracy even make their home cities HAPPIER, which is somewhat inane. [City Defense deaths should NOT cause unhappiness, and neither should defensive deaths in locations that would not cause democracy/republic unhappiness (e.g. inside happy borders)

31) Ability to extend happyborders to inside all allies' borders as well as your own for republic/democracy unhappiness. (So you can send units to defend your allies without causing unhappiness)

[cazfi]

31) Ability to extend happyborders to inside all allies' borders as well as your own for republic/democracy unhappiness. (So you can send units to defend your allies without causing unhappiness)

Made patch #5001 about this.

[dunnoob]

I've been thinking 6 for a long time, but it's not a trivial change and you are first one beside myself to request it.

Add me. It's quite annoying when I have to press S many times (all units where F does not work) only because a peaceful AI tries to sniff out my borders. It's also annoying when F triggers fortress instead of fortify in engineering teams (one guardian and a bunch of engineers), but that might be a different related problem.

[cazfi]

It's also annoying when F triggers fortress instead of fortify in engineering teams (one guardian and a bunch of engineers), but that might be a different related problem.

In freeciv-2.6 development version F is always fortify, and bases are build with Shift+F and Shift+E.

[GriffonSpade]

32) In Units.ruleset, Change the name of the "DefenseDivider" variable to "AttackMultiplier". No actual mechanics change, just something to reduce the required mental gymnastics. (DefenseDivider is declared in the Attacker, but effects the Defender. It's somewhat confusing, as without reading the reference, it looks like it just counters the DefenseMultiplier variable. Might as well just have it read as AttackMultiplier, which is the apparent effect for the one in whose section it is declared in.)

33) Add the ability for bombarder units to Counter-Bombard when an enemy bombards them, using their own Bombard ability (or perhaps controlled by new counter-bombard fields). Have the ability to counter-bombard be controlled by a field (For example, a Howitzer could counter-bombard a battleship or cannon, but a catapult cannot counter-bombard them. This would be a list like the cargo field, listing applicable Unit Classes. Declared in either the Attack or Defender's fields, it doesn't matter.)

34) Add the ability for units to Bombard-Defend when an enemy bombards them. Bombard-Defense would force bombarder units to NOT bombard, and to use normal attack versus defense rules; controlled by a field (For example, a Fighter could defend against a bomber, but a Legion can not. This would be a list like the cargo field, listing applicable Unit Classes. Declared in either the Attack or Defender's fields, it doesn't matter.)

[GriffonSpade]

http://gna.org/patch/index.php?4904 (Increase the number of unit flags to 32) seems to have been shelved and forgotten due to more pressing matters. (I can't see it anywhere in the S2_5/changelog on the wiki) Just a reminder that it exists

[cazfi]

http://gna.org/patch/index.php?4904 (Increase the number of unit flags to 32) seems to have been shelved and forgotten due to more pressing matters. (I can't see it anywhere in the S2_5/changelog on the wiki)

It was too late for S2_5 from the beginning - S2_5 ruleset format was frozen in Feb-14 already. Thansk for the reminder, though. It seems it was not targeted even to 2.6.