forum.freeciv.org

The Freeciv versions currently in development, Freeciv 2.6 and Freeciv 3.0, have moved more rules to the ruleset. It may be possible to exploit the new ruleset flexibility to make the civ1 ruleset and the civ2 ruleset more like the rules of the games they are based on.

When a rule moves to the ruleset the rule that used to be hard coded is often added to all the bundled rulesets. If and how a rule should change is a different concern from how it should be unhardcoded. Thinking about, researching and discussing what rule is correct for a given ruleset can be done later. In the case of civ1 and civ2 the correct rule is the rule that is closest to the game it is based on (unless a Freeciv related problem would have it result in a really broken game play).

A Freeciv developer unhardcoding a rule may not think of checking if a more correct civ1 or civ2 ruleset just became possible. It is possible to be a Freeciv developer without having access to Civilization and Civilization II. Changing civ1 or civ2 without being able to test if the original game really was closer to the change than to Freeciv's old hard coded behavior is risky.

You don't have to be a programmer to help make the civ1 ruleset or the civ2 ruleset more correct. Most of a Freeciv ruleset is a collection of configuration files. If you discover a rule in the civ1 ruleset or in the civ2 ruleset that could be more correct please submit a bug report. Bonus points for attaching a patch with your correction.

Resources

• How to modify a Freeciv ruleset
• Some of the changes in what a 2.6 ruleset can do. (Changes that are older than the thread not included)
• Changes in what a 3.0 ruleset can do.
• The guides for upgrading a ruleset from 2.5 to 2.6 and from 2.6 to 3.0 give an idea about what rules have been unhardcoded.
• Spy actions and caravan actions are more configurable in 2.6.
• Actions are even more configurable in 3.0.
• The effect documentation for 3.0.
• The rulesets civ1 and civ2 in Freeciv 2.6.
• The rulesets civ1 and civ2 in Freeciv trunk (3.0).

Not yet investigated

• Caravan action and spy action legality when the actor unit is out of moves / on non native terrain / transported / etc. (Can now be changed using action enablers)
• Was the bonus reduced if you entered the marketplace in stead of establishing a trade route? (Can be changed in 3.0)
• Was entering a marketplace (and not establishing a trade route) possible at all? When? (Can be changed in 2.6)
• Was the bribe cost of Settlers 50% of the bribe cost of other units? (Added in Freeciv using the Unit_Bribe_Cost_Pct effect)
• Would trying to do an illegal action cost you moves? (Added in Freeciv using the Illegal_Action_Move_Cost effect)

Know to be impossible at the moment

• Unsafe terrain from Civilization 2. (The path finding would cheerfully have a unit end its turn on unsafe terrain)

The civ2 ruleset now allows spies and diplomats to perform spy actions while transported inside a ship. See bug #23604. Thanks to Steve R. for letting us know what the Civilization II rule was.

Had civ1 possibility to Enter Marketplace at all, or was Caravan unable to do anything if either its homecity or target city had all the traderoute slots in use?

The plant nuclear device spy action was added to the civ2 ruleset in patch #5627. The details of the rules are probably wrong. To make it easier to correct the rules I have translated them to English at our wiki.

Update: Known bugs

• Missing Fundamentalism exception to Casus Belli rule reported by JTN (bug #23778) Update: fixed

Civ 2: What should boarding and disembarking ships do to the movement points of land units? See bug #23782

Is the current approximation (take all movement points when disembarking) the best approximation possible given the current Freeciv ruleset format?

Did civ1 and civ2 have all the diplomatic states freeciv currently has? In particular, was it possible to form an alliance where units of the two nations can coexist on the same tile?

My recollection of Civ I is that there were only two dipl states: war or peace (or perhaps also unmet). I have seen somewhere a comment to the contrary so there may be version issues (or problems with my memory).

P.S. There are still many compliance issues which are a bit annoying since this project started when there was only Civ I. Sometime soon I will unload on tile resources (notably grassland).

cazfi wrote:Had civ1 possibility to Enter Marketplace at all, or was Caravan unable to do anything if either its homecity or target city had all the traderoute slots in use?

My recollection was that Civ I was similar to current freeciv (i.e could replace a less useful route, if not enter marketplace). However one thing I would add is that the recurrent value of routes reached a zenith in the mid game (maxing out at about 13 (x3) ). After that it slowly declined to be of little significance by the end of the game.

cazfi wrote:In particular, was it possible to form an alliance where units of the two nations can coexist on the same tile?

Not at Civ1. Attempts to move a unit in same cell as another nation's unit is always interpreted as an attack and cancels treaties if confirmed.

cazfi wrote:Did civ1 and civ2 have all the diplomatic states freeciv currently has? In particular, was it possible to form an alliance where units of the two nations can coexist on the same tile?

It appears that alliance dipl_rel was introduced by Civ II https://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/list-o ... upidities/ (4th last in the mil list). This list raises some interesting questions about what should and what should not be included in fc Civ* rulesets i.e. how adaptive should fc be to AI stupidities and privileges present in these commercial games?

On another point (vaguely alluded to) in Civ I (and Civ II?) all AI units had the SPY ability to establish an embassy - which could now be handled by action enablers, but of interest is that all units could also form trade routes WITHOUT loss of the unit. I'm not sure that this is possible at present. This suggests a generalised ...-escape option for all unit actions that would/could consume the unit.