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: Niels Weber <nath@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:42:32 +0100
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:

>> A Freeciv Nations FAQ will be an attempt to shorten discussions,
>> not an attempt to stir them up.
> That's why I say, that every nation should be included: No discussion
> neccessary.

Agreed. It's just the question *where* it's included.

> I remember that somebody said that there are so many Birminghams(?) as
> real cities that it would not be a problem to have more in the rulesets.
> But this problem can be solved by forbidding identical names in one game.
> He who founds Birmingham first gets it.

That would be one solution. Another idea would be that some nations 
exclude others from the same game. So e.g. if someone chooses Germany, 
no other could choose Bavaria in the same game.

>> Not necessarily - I don't think Bavaria conforms, but nobody objects to it.
> Not yet. Imagine that somebody from Saxonia complains. Wouldn't it be
> easiest to explain to him that he should stop complaining and make a
> saxonia.ruleset?


>>> If, however, somebody plays as Bismarck, it would not make sense to
>>> exclude K=F6nigsberg or Stra=DFburg, but to include Wolfsburg.
>> You're right, but I think it's a reasonable concsession to practicality.
> I would simply throw everythig in one bag and let the player decide which
> city he wants.

So there should perhaps be an option to skip a proposed city. Otherwise 
you would have to name every city you found (after the first unwanted) 


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