Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: July 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: nuclear fallout (was: autosettler cleans pollut
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: patch: nuclear fallout (was: autosettler cleans pollut

[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: patch: nuclear fallout (was: autosettler cleans pollution more)
From: "SamBC" <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:11:58 +0100
Reply-to: <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

One question - I'm sure you all recall that I have a thing for keeping
CivII-mode compatible very closely (despite not contributing code), so I
ask, is this to be an option, which is activated by default but deactivated
in CivII-mode? CivII mode should, obviously, have the original style
pollution...


SamBC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jeff Mallatt
> Sent: 05 July 2000 18:09
> To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] patch: nuclear fallout (was: autosettler cleans
> pollution more)
>
>
> At 2000/06/18 18:11 , Jeff Mallatt wrote:
> >At 2000/06/18 17:42 , Andy Black wrote:
> >>At 10:30 AM -0400 6/18/2000, Jeff Mallatt wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>>Except for pollution caused by being nuked.  However, I don't
> want the AIs
> >>>to aggressively clean-up nuke pollution: a friend pointed out
> that making
> >>>the AIs clean up nuke pollution makes nuking them a great way
> of wasting
> >>>their Settlers/Engineers.  I don't want to make nukes
> attractive to use, so
> >>>I'm thinking of adding a different kind of pollution,
> S_FALLOUT, that acts
> >>>just like S_POLLUTION in game terms, but that the AI doesn't
> aggressively
> >>>clean-up.
> >>Wasn't there something earlier on the list about the difference betwene
> >>regular and neuclear polution?
> >>I belive a thought that had been given was neuclear fallout is harder to
> >>clean up than regular messes and takes much more time.  It also requires
> >>advanced technology.
> >>Proposal:
> >>    Implement above sugestion.
> >>    In adition, make cleanup of neuclear polution take longer (same
> >>amount of time as teraforming?),
> >
> >Longer, but probably not that much longer (3 -vs- 24 ?).
>
> This patch adds Nuclear Fallout.
>
> Industrialization and population still generate Pollution.
> Dropping a Nuke
> generates Nuclear Fallout, which is distinct from Pollution.  There is a
> new command to clean Fallout vs. cleaning Pollution.  Similar to Pollution
> contributing to Global Warming, Fallout contributes to Nuclear Winter --
> which also changes terrain, but tends to Desert, Tundra and
> Glacier.  Added
> a new "cooling" icon to indicate the progress towards Nuclear Winter, and
> also icons for Fallout and Cleaning Fallout.  (As usual, most of
> my artwork
> could be improved. :)  GTK+ and Xaw clients work; made some changes to MUI
> client, but they are incomplete and untested.  Finally, auto-Settlers are
> more aggressive at cleaning up Pollution, but not Fallout.
>
> I did not make any of the "unit" changes discussed above -- they can wait
> for a time when the set of unit flags needs to be expanded.  (I can see
> cleaning Fallout requiring advanced technology, but I'm not convinced it
> should take any longer.)
>




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