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
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: freedata
From: Gerhard Killesreiter <killes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:23:41 +0100 (CET)
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Niels Weber wrote:

> So why not have a netherland.historic and a netherland.modern?

I would not mind. But what period to chose?

> > 
> > Official Turkish policy is to call them mountain-Turks.
> It is at least a fantasy-nation, perhaps also historic, I don't know.

It is definetely not a fantasy-nation: There are Real Life(tm) people
who consider themselves Kurdish. But it is of course historic _and_
I propose to follow the idea of R. Miller in this matter. 

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

And Germany too, if we would subscribe to the idea that a nation has to
have a state.

> > I do not like it. I would rather like to include every nation that
> > somebody wants to be included to be included. And I do think that it is
> > possible to decide what is a nation and what is not. Take the existance of
> > a language as an example.
> I agree with this. We first have to lift the current limit of 63 nations 
> somehow...

Find the definition and change it. But maybe one should divide the nation-
choosing dialogue into four parts (like a notebook):

- UNO-nations: States that are recognized by the UN
- other nations
- historic nations
- fantasy nations
> > A possible solution would be to mark cities in the ruleset to be
> > allowed for one ruler and not the other. Of course the player could
> > override it.
> Cannons against Sparrows?

It would not be difficult to implement, I think, but may be difficult to

> Therefore I propose that we have two rulesets: one modern, one historic.

Again: What period would you like? Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation?
Second Reich? Weimar Republic? Third Reich? 

Other histories are probably not less difficult.

That's why I think it would be easiest to put all cities into one ruleset.

> I made the changes, because all that I knew about a ruleset-policy was, 
> that we don't include cities that belong to other nations nowadays.The 

Where was that policy given?

> second rule I know was about the order of the cities (by size and age), 
> which I didn't follow, because I haven't got the perl-script that was 
> made for ordering and because I was to lazy to search for every single 
> city in my enceclopedia to find the founding date. (If someone sends me 
> the perl-script, perhaps I'm not to lazy anymore...)

I don't speak Perl, sorry. But looking things up in the enceclopedia
should be done. I don't have any ;o)


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