Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: January 2001:
[freeciv-data] Re: freedata

[freeciv-data] Re: freedata

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx (Freeciv data/)
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: freedata
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:12:36 +0100
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:44:05PM +0100, Niels Weber wrote:

> Hi!
> Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Reinier Post wrote:
> >> It is intended to explicitly nations such as 'Fantasy Netherlands'
> >> including cities like include Keulen, Luik and Luxemburg.
> >
> > Have those cities been part of the Netherlands at one point in
> > history? Then, in my opinion, these are not fantasy Netherlands, but
> > historical ones.

They haven't.  The rules would allow them in a nation named the
'Fantasy Natherlands' or 'Double Dutch' or whatever, but not in the
standard 'Dutch' nation in the default ruleset.


> I think, if we were in the 19th century and would be playing with modern 
> nations, poland would have to be excluded.

OK, i can see a rule there: modern nations must be broadly recognised
states in international diplomacy today.

> [..]  We first have to lift the current limit of 63 nations 
> somehow...


the only problem seems to be the fact that selections of nations
at startup time are encoded as bitmasks.

> > If, however, somebody plays as Bismarck, it would not make sense to
> > exclude Königsberg or Straßburg, but to include Wolfsburg.
> Therefore I propose that we have two rulesets: one modern, one historic.

That is a good idea, but I think it's nice that the default ruleset is a mix
of all kinds of nations.


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