[Xconq-hackers] A modest proposal to simplify variant development

[Massimo C. <Mas...@df...>]

I have thought a very simple feature that would help maintaining game
variants:

If a unit (or terrain, or material) type cannot appear in a game
(i.e., it is not present and it can't be created later on), don't
report the type at all in the interface, neither in the help screens,
nor in the unit/material summary...

E.g., if in the steppes game you disable the construction of ships,
    (table can-build add (cities ships false))
the player will not even notice that ship types are defined
(similarly for unused terrain types).

Simple variants to the standard game (say) could then be allowed by
defining in stdunit and stdterr the most likely additions (like a
fighter-bomber unit or a hills terrain) as "empty" types (without
non-default properties, table entries, etc.) and not allowing them to
appear in the game.

        ...
    (unit-type fighter (image-name "trident-fighter")
      (help "interceptor to get those nasty bombers"))
    (unit-type fighter-bomber)
    (unit-type bomber (image-name "trident-bomber")
      (help "long range aircraft, carries infantry and bombs"))
        ...
    (define ok-u (i a f b d s t c b n B T @))
        ...

I know, you could obtain a similar result by

    (unit-type fighter-bomber ...)
    (include "stdunit")
        ...
    (table hit-chance add ...)

The problem is that the new types appear before the standard ones, not
where you would like them.  In fact, I have a "standard game +
fighter-bomber" sitting on my computer, and I ended up with copying
stdunits.g rather than including it.

What do you think?

Regards,
        Massimo