Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Development Strategies [Was Documentation, Usability a
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Development Strategies [Was Documentation, Usability a

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Andrew Sutton <ansutton@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Development Strategies [Was Documentation, Usability and Development]
From: Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:55:00 -0600

On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:48:52PM -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> hmm... those would certainly make things a little more complicated, wouldn't 
> they ;) for the map stuff, you could build a replacable map module that 
> implemented its own coordinate positions. for example, civ games use a single 
> plane. MoM used, had an underground, IIRC... i've never played SMAC so i'm 
> not entirely sure what the requirements for that would be. actually civ map 
> is just an instance of a multi-plane map with only a single plane.

        MoM's map didn't really have an underground, just two separate
planes with the same base coordinates and tranfers points between them.
(And with the right spell effect, any unit could transfer at any point)

        You should play SMAC.  (Well, everyone should play SMAC, but that's
a different statement. :) )  SMAC "only" changes everything.  There is no
concept of monolithic governments any more.  Each nation's government is
decided by choices from 4 philosophical realms.  Each choice has different
effects.  Choose Police State, and your Martial Law and Garrison rules
change.  Choose Planned Economy, and you lose some efficiency of
production.  etc.  I'm not going to even try to go into exhaustive detail
from memory, although I'm sure there are several places on the web I could
find a table, including FreecivAC.  Ah, here we go.

http://www.firaxis.com/smac/tech.cfm

        As has already been discussed on this list, units in SMAC are built
up from composite parts.  Sea Settlers and other units are possible that
would require work to support in Freeciv as it stands.
        The map includes several named regions.  Each of these has
particular forms and effects.  The map has several different levels of
height, which you can change.  Sinking cities is a valid tactic.  The map
has attributes like Rainy, which affect tile values.  There are timed
events which affect the world map (Sunspot activity overwhelming all
communications between factions, etc).
        SMAC has a seven-level experience system, which affects more than
just attack/defense capability.  Also, Psychic Combat is a completely
separate mode where att/def numbers are not used.

        Moving to parametric unit and building effects is good.  We
shouldn't have different hardcoded capabilities for raising and lowering
happiness, etc.  Moving to completely user- or modpack-defined I'm not sure
is either possible or a good idea.

> i'm not quite sure i remember the unit or faction rules from MoM :(

        Lots of wierd things about who can build which buildings and
units, what capabilities each had (certain races had intrinsic flying or
missile attacks, etc, which took effect even if the base unit did not have
those capabilities), how much each building cost certain races, different
production bonuses and penalties for different resources for different
races, map-based production cost advantages and unit statistics modifiers,
different food production per worker, food production divorced from terrain
and dependent solely on workers, etc.  The whole thing was a mess.  I'm not
surprised that the final result was buggier than a Minnesota lake in summer.

> i think there's ways to implement some of these other features in the same 
> way that there's been handicapping conversations lately. bonuses and gifts 
> are just instances of handicapping for a race in general.

        Right.

> there's lots to think about, but i don't think its impossible. besides, 
> creating an implementation thats open enough should encourage thought about 
> these things. i'm sure more than one person have said, "i really liked MoM. 
> i'm going to rewrite it." you're right. we shouldn't necessarily think about 
> the implementation of these things, but i'd hate to disqualify them as an 
> eventual possibility.

        Again, part of the point of MoM was the presentation style, which
was very different.  A stricter plan allows more directed user interface
elements, which increase ease of learning the game.
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And they said work hard, and die suddenly, because it's fun."
        -Robyn Hitchcock.


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