Hi. Why do not add new requirement type?
In both cases, we need information of which city is provided which good to current city.
Reply To lachu
Hi. Why do not add new requirement type?
That would differ from a "Good" requirement only in that it's true also for the producing city?
I guess it would work too. Not sure it would be better. As the requirement types would be almost identical, it would mean some duplicate code to maintain. I'm currently slightly in favor of my current implementation. Any other opinions?
Attached patch implements the original Self-Provided good flag idea.
Currently Goods requirement is true only for a city that imports them. The exporting city does not have them. While it's possible for the exporting city to have same requirements for anything as it has for exporting the good, that's a different requirement definition to what importing city uses. Thus it's not possible to construct many rules where the exporting and importing cities have the same benefit (effects and action enablers are an exception, as you can have multiple of those, with different requirements).
As a solution to this I'm proposing "self-provided" (goods flag) goods. Requirement for such a good would also be true for a city exporting, or capable of exporting (i.e. having the goods initial requirements fulfilled), the good.