Freeciv

OK there is "the easy part" patch here.

Is there a hard part? Well I see a TODO list

I'm VERY interested in this feature because so many complaints we get over unrealistic/stupid casus belli. For example, "I'm a Republic with a Senate, now I have to allow this Monarchy I made peace with to come in and pillage all my roads and mines, and my stupid Senate won't let me do anything about it!" We know very well, in real life if we went to ancient Rome and started pillaging their things, the Senate would be shouting and demanding for legions to come kill us.

I'm interested to see an example of how this is programmed in the ruleset, that it causes casus belli just for the nation who is getting their tile pillaged.

Lexxie L wrote:

Is there a hard part? Well I see a TODO list

The hard (time consuming) part is going over the current casus belli on success actions and fix the cases were the easy part would cause bugs or unintentional rule changes.

One example is that bribe unit and capture units use a function that deletes the original target unit and creates a new one. Its deletion has side effects like updating loss statistics, cargo saving, transport unloading, emission of the unit_lost signal and player death if the unit is GamleLoss.

I have started and then posponed this feature multiple times over the years. Not sure if it was worth the time investment. Your feed back has caused me to increase its priority.

I'm VERY interested in this feature because so many complaints we get over unrealistic/stupid casus belli. For example, "I'm a Republic with a Senate, now I have to allow this Monarchy I made peace with to come in and pillage all my roads and mines, and my stupid Senate won't let me do anything about it!"

A work around to fix this specific case (without adding casus belli to all actions) could be to add a action_consequence_success() call to the pillage action. Care would have to be taken that it is triggered when the pillage order is given as an activity.

If activity set via an actvity order in a unit orders packet, an activity set via the activity packet and activities set via the action packet still use different code paths when this is done the_easy_part.patch needs additions for casus belli when the activity is set via the activity packet or via an activity order in unit orders.

Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik wrote:

A work around to fix this specific case (without adding casus belli to all actions) could be to add a action_consequence_success() call to the pillage action. Care would have to be taken that it is triggered when the pillage order is given as an activity.

Now Feature #874197

It's over 18 months since last activity in this ticket, and this is one of the remaining S3_1 d3f blockers. Is there such a breakage that it makes it impossible to postpone this to 3.2? If yes, how can we make something suitable for 3.1 soon? Other thoughts?