Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: June 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Watchtowers
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Watchtowers

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Watchtowers
From: Jules Bean <jmlb2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:35:20 +0100

On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 02:05:49PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:04:11AM -0700, jrb3@xxxxxxxx (Joseph Beckenbach 
> III, CCP) wrote:
>  
> >     Why not generalize "fortress" to include watchtowers as a variant?
> > This generalized item would be the "immobile unit-like structures/terrain
> > feature" of interest.  Heh heh heh -- maybe put "city" under that same
> > generalized item.
> 
> Yes, great idea - and huts, too ... even wonders!  (Lighthouse?)

I think this is an exciting idea, too.  (For freeciv mode, of
course). We've done pretty well at imitation, now is the time for
innovation.  I can think of loads of useful structures --- fortresses
(maybe even two or three different power levels of them), watchtowers,
lighthouses (sea visibility), 'large-scale' walls (like hadrians wall
or the great wall).

> 
> > Pro:
> > * Engineer and Settler build code in place
> > * already being skipped, already owned
> 
> It would be nice to have the option of non-owned structures, too.

Non-owned structures could just be automatically captured if moved
over (like empty cities, IOW).

Jules

-- 
Jules Bean                          |        Any sufficiently advanced 
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk}  |  technology is indistinguishable
jmlb2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx              |               from a perl script



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