Action enabler specifying if action should be confirmed
alienvalkyrie Reply To cazfi
should ruleset author really have power to decide when things need confirming and when not?
If we want extra confirmation for some (but not all) actions and contexts, then I would say yes. While we'll certainly want client-side settings to control stuff as well, not having a level of ruleset-provided hints for things that are more or less likely to need confirmation sounds untenable. The alternative would be extensive client-side, ruleset-specific settings to let players individually decide which things do or don't need confirmation. Which, while certainly awesome for power users, would be absolute hell for most players to set up individually for every single ruleset. (And that's before we get into the effort and complexity required to implement the system and UI for every client variant.)
So yeah; it'd probably be reasonable to have some hints provided by the ruleset, possibly with multiple levels rather than just a simple binary conditional/unconditional; as well as client settings to override them, kinda like setting log levels.
Early idea I got when entering Hut with an Settler (risking barbarians): Currently we could use action enablers to prevent Settlers from taking such action, in the name of protecting user. But we could have field in action enablers telling whether it enables action unconditionally, or only by user confirmation (and then subject to client side setup regarding such confirmations, the framework we already have mostly in place in freeciv-3.2 and later).
Likely "unconditional" enabler should took precedence over "conditional" one (if the action has already been enabled unconditionally, one cannot turn it back to conditional, just like we can't otherwise again disable something that has been enabled).
The downside is mixing usability things with the rules - should ruleset author really have power to decide when things need confirming and when not?