[Freeciv-Dev] Re: It's a game already!

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wed, 16 Feb 2000 Dan Ward <danward2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Splitting the game up into historical, ancient & modern civilisations
> is a really bad idea; IMO mixing eras was one of the reasons that >made 
> PayCiv great. In what way does this arbitrary separation make
> the game more fun the play?
Agreed.  It would only be a problem if the same civilization appears
as more than one nation in the same nations ruleset, e.g. the ancient
Romans and the mordern Italians.  Maybe we should ask some Italian
players for their opinion on whether this is desirable or not.  For
me, one Chinese nation is enough.  :-)

> On the subject of city & civ names I'd suggest sticking to names that
> are generally identifed with a particular civ in particular I can see
> no benefit in renaming the Chinese to Han or English to Anglo Saxon
> expecially as the latter is very non-PC.
Again, agreed.  Changing these names would only server to confuse
people.  In general, I suggest that we do not make too fine a point of
it.  Eventually, we should have nations that are fully customizable by
the player.

> BTW are civilisations hard coded into the game or can we just drop new ones 
> in without recompiling?
With the nations ruleset, new nations can be added easily without
recompiling.  It is loaded on the server though, so players cannot yet
add their own nations (unless they are running the server themselves,
of course).

Mike

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com