[Freeciv-Dev] gameplay

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I haven't tried the GTK client yet, it's probably a little behind the Xaw one
in features.

> * freeciv does not inform you when a structure is completed in a c

In the Xaw client, this is configurable.

>  Instead,
>  the city switches to another, apparently randomly chosen, structure.  This is
>  extremely annoying;

I agree.  Actually, if I could somehow configure which one it would choose,
it would be useful.

> * freeciv does not inform you when a city enters disorder.

In the Xaw client, this is configurable.

> * Notifications.  There are many times when Freeciv displays fairly important
> messages in the info box at the bottom without much fanfare.  I'd like an
> option to display various types of messages in a popup box so that I don't 
> miss
> them.

In the Xaw client, this is configurable.

>  For example, tech achievements;

Oh yes!  I wish that in the Xaw client, I could turn them off!

> Civs I and II pop up a dialog, which is sometimes
> helpful and sometimes annoying. :-)

The Xaw client's behaviour.
> 
> * Unit movement.  I had 'smooth movement' or some such item selected, but 
> units
> still simply disappeared from one square and appeared in another.

Not so in the Xaw client.

> * Combat.  This is related to the above problem, I suspect.  When my units
> were attacked (or when I attacked another unit), there was no indication of 
> the
> battle.  The vanquished unit simply vanished from the map, and the HP bar
> of the victorious unit dropped.  When an AI player was attacking me, I often
> didn't even see the unit that attacked.

Huh?  Not so in the Xaw client.

> * Players.  The flags for each country are cute, but it's much easier to
> quickly recognize a solid color.  I found it difficult to distinguish between
> the various players.

In the Xaw client, this is configurable.
 
> * Balance.  In 1500 BC (or thereabouts) musketeers were dropped outside
> my cities.  This doesn't seem so good to me.

Balance of what?  I don't understand your complaint ...


> * City displays.  I'm not sure here, the pictograms in CivI/II were useful for
> getting an at-a-glance image of a city's production, but the numbers are nice
> too.  Maybe you should include both in the popup window?

I don't know.  I have no complaint about te Xaw client in this respect.
 
> * City List.  It's wonderful, but I noticed two problems: first, when you
> Change what a city is building, it deselects the city.  I don't like thi
> behavior since I might want to do several things in a row with a city.

Try the Xaw client.

> Second,
> clicking on Buy doesn't give you a confirmation dialog, so if you might not
> have wanted to buy the item after seeing the cost, you don't get a choice.
> (could you just call the city_buy_item routine?)

?  No such problem in the Xaw client.
 
> * City tiles.  CivI and CivII indicated graphically whether a city had
> defenders.  Freeciv doesn't.

Yes, the Xaw client has had problems with this as well, for a while,
because the two colous were too similar.  Not anymore (in CVS).

> * Science report.  Is that list at the bottom of the dialog a list of techs?

I don't know.  Try the Xaw client.
 
> * Aesthetics.  I think that a lot of things in the GTK+ client need to be
> redesigned to be prettier.

Well, aesthetics is the one reason the GTK client was created, I suppose.
But it's brand new.

> * Client control of server.  This is a big architectural change, I assume,

Not really, if you're happy with a simple method.

> The server should still be a separate process; perhaps the
> first player that connects would be considered the 'admin'.

I was thinking of a 'master' command to allow/disallow server commands issued
from particular players.

>(magic cookies
> would help for authentication here, although that player would usually
> be local)  This is probably more of a 'wishlist' item..

Maybe, maybe not.
 
>   Nothing is hopeless.

I see you've been using the GTK client :-)
 
>   PROOF:
> (a) Assume the opposite.
> (b) If something _is_ hopeless, then its condition can only improve.
> (c) If its condition can only improve, then there must be hope for it.
(The invalid step.)

> (d) Therefore, nothing is hopeless.  QED.

-- 
Reinier Post                                             rp@xxxxxxxxxx