Comment 12 for bug 1198624

I disagree with you Peter. The loose condition "when you have no more warehouses and not the resources to build a new one" is harder to convey (and to check) for players, so it feels fishy. Also if your economy is big enough you will always have enough wares floating around to build another warehouse - but without a warehouse, your economy will collapse quickly.

If you really do not have a warehouse anymore you have lost for all scenarios that I can think off - I argue having this simple loosing condition is better than another conditional in it and having to hunt down all buildings of the other players. I do not even remember ever having played a game against a human where I had to destroy all of his warehouses - usually one of the player gives up earlier because something else is not going right for her and it is apparent who would win the game anyways. This is another support for my argument that simple is better (i.e. it will only matter against the CPU anyways).

 I say, let's keep the "no warehouses == loss" for now and reconsider your proposal if it ever feels weird in the game. What do you think?

Btw, we have to check the scenarios with this new condition - some of them might rely on the old behavior.