Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Karl-Ingo Friese <kif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sebastian Bauer <sebauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3
From: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:07:35 +0100

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:03:54PM +0200, Karl-Ingo Friese wrote:
> Hmm ... maybe I misunderstood you then ;) The point is: right now we
> have a fixed number of options that can be altered at runtime via
> server settings and a few others who for-whatever-reasons have to
> via ruleset at server starting time. This is a) confusing and b)
> unnessary.

Agreed, absolutely.

> I like the server variable syntax (mainly because I often
> work with them and almost never with rulesets). The best solution
> in my eyes would be that a ruleset would have the same syntax as
> if you would change the variables at runtime (thats what I meant
> with "make all rulsettings server variables"). So a ruleset that
> sets citymindist to 3 would contain a line
>    set researchcost 20
>    ....
>  > set citymindist 3
>    ...
>    set techpenalty 50

Only rulesets are more structured, in fact.  Having things like units
in them. But that could be done from the commandline as:

set units.warrior.attack 1

or something.

I leave the details of whether this is feasible to the hackers...


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