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

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Railroads and AI

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Freeciv Development Mailing List" <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Railroads and AI
From: "Sam BC" <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:47:50 +0100
Reply-to: <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I do tend now to accept that freeciv-mode should be default, although
providing a wrapper script called 'freecivII' or similar would be nice to
start up in CivII mode.

However, I cannot accept (not that it matters) that features should be
allowed to break CivII compatibility while that is a stated goal of the
project. Change what the stated goals of the project are by all means, and
then break compatibility. However, compatibility must be a priority while it
is stated as such. In essence, I suppose it is up to Jeff/the other
maintainers!


SamBC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:tuma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tuomas
> Airaksinen
> Sent: 22 June 2000 21:48
> To: Sam BC
> Cc: Freeciv Development Mailing List
> Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Railroads and AI
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 08:39:40PM +0100, Sam BC wrote:
> > See below
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thue
> > >
> > <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > It is my (humble) belief that default behaviour (ie when no
> > > server options
> > > > are set & no explicit ruleset used) should be as close as we
> > > can possibly
> > > > get to CivII (including irritating features, but not bugs)
> and extras be
> > > > optional - all of them... so if nothing explicit is stated, the
> > > gamers get
> > > > CivII mode...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SamBC
> > >
> > > That is a very accurate description of the goals of the civ 2
> > > mode. IMO the
> > > freeciv mode may have extras.
> > >
> > > -Thue
> >
> > And IMHO, given the stated goals of Freeciv, CivII mode should
> be default,
> > and most supported (ie we do not introduce new features which
> break CivII
> > compliance utterly, like some of the Railroad suggestions).
> >
> > I completely understand it is tempting to do so, as it makes
> the AI code a
> > lot easier, but no problem is insoluble.
>
> I dare to disagree. Freeciv is freeciv - not civ2, but much better, and
> that civ2-compatibility-compulsion may only slow down development of
> freeciv. Freeciv-mode should of course be default.
>
> --
> kirjoitti:  Tuomas Airaksinen              linux
> kotisivu:   http://tumasites.cjb.net        is
> sähköposti: tuma@xxxxxxxxxxxx                all we
> icq:        11870110, ircnet: tuma            need
>
>
>




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