Connected Trench Systems between Allies?

[Renegade]

I'm currently (slightly) reworking the current building-line-drawing logic to allow for multiple trench parts to be built in a single swoop, just like walls or fences.
In the process of this, I had to add checks on which buildings to allow linking with.
One of the checks I added was ownership - you don't want your trenches to link with the enemy's.

However, when coding that particular part, I asked myself: Do I want my trenches to link with my allies'?

It should, on principle, be a very simple modification, and given that raidable buildings should be just as raidable by allies as by enemies, allowing them to link would, in theory, mean that two allies could quickly link up their trench systems and, more or less freely, move around between them.

The same thing will be possible either way if the trenches are built so they touch each other, automatic linking would just save a few clicks. Note, however, that the same check will be used by Ares's firestorm wall extension (not sure if that is currently in use or not), and likely future linkable buildings, so it's not limited to trenches alone. (That is, your own firestorm wall would also automatically connect to your ally's - they would still be activated independently from each other, just the gap would automatically be closed, if possible.)

I cannot foresee how it'll look/work in practice, only tests will tell. In theory, it's a very simple, small, minor change. Even if you do decide for it, if tests show weird problems, we may have to turn it off. Truth to be told, I don't know yet if raiding out of the inside of trenches will work right away (even though I can't see why it shouldn't, from the code), but I very much like that idea, so I'll make it work, if necessary.
So, given that it's a very simple change (build a few extra line pieces if the ally's same structure is near), and it's very easy to implement, it's really only a question of whether you want that or not. The exact same constructs will be able to be built manually, it's only a question of a tiny bit of automation.

And no, given that it's very most likely a one operator, one function change, I will not add another flag to control that. It's a simple question: Do you want me to add that extra exception, or should I leave things as they were?