Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: May 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support

[freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv-ai <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: Generalised improvements AI support
From: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 23:43:19 -0400

At 02:51 PM 02/05/08 +0200, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
>On Wed, 8 May 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
>> Explain your viewpoint. I'm not sure why you don't like generalised
>> I would have thought you'd like the idea of making Freeciv like a game
>> Plug in the right ruleset, and you transform it from Civ 1,2,3 or SMAC.
>Huh? I think generalised buildings is the best thing since sliced bread. I
>just don't see the necessity of taking exactly the same approach to units.

What are the key attributes you see in units vs buildings that make 
you say this? 

Personally, I like the concept of modular stackable functionality. But
an implementation where everything is an instance of one big mega-object
can quickly become a development nightmare.

It might be nice to see a side-by-side comparison of key elements of the
gen-impr system, and what might be a gen-unit one and see where the likes 
and dislikes crop up, no?

>"The only thing that keeps the system working at all is that the United
>States, the richest country in the world, has become the "deficit of last
>resort." This is the ultimate irony: the financial system allows the United
>States to live year after year beyond its means, buying abroad far more
>goods than it sells, even as the US Treasury, year after year, lectures
>others on why they should not do so." -- Joseph Stiglitz


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]