Re: [[Freeciv-Dev] Babarians]

[David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony Stuckey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 1999 at 08:52:47AM +0100, Stig Haugdahl wrote:
> > Personally, I think the free explorer is a too big freebie. 
> > Losing it in the first hut is a valid reason for whining. 
> > I would feel better if the game started without that extra unit.
> 
>       There are a *LOT* of things that freeciv gives you that civ1/civ2
> doesn't.  Starting Civ1, you have:
>       1) No gold in treasury.  (Freeciv gives you 50).

Server option "gold".

>       2) No starting Tech.  Random Chance of 1 or 2 advances.  (Freeciv
> gives you 3, guaranteed)

Server option "techlevel"; no randomness, I guess to avoid giving
a random advantage in multiplayer.

>       3) 1 starting settler, random chance of 2.  (Freeciv gives you 2).

Server option "settlers".  No randomness, see above.

>       4) No starting explorer.

Server option "explorer". 

So I guess we're arguing over server option defaults? :-)

And whoever loses that arguement can always make a server 
commands file for their preference, which could even be included
in the distribution.  A file to specify Civ1/Civ2 compliance
(as much as possible) would probably be good.  And feel free to 
submit changes to data/civ1.serv, which is supposed to mimic Civ1.
Eg, from above I guess it should have "set gold 0" ?

> > In CivII it is possible to win the space race even on deity with 
> > just one city. (Not me, I've won with five on deity, and just 
> > the one on chieftain.) In freeciv, the only way to win to expand. 
> > But I digress.

It this mainly because of difference in rules, or because of AI
differences between Civ2/freeciv would you say?

Regards,
-- David