Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: irc summary

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: irc summary

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: irc summary
From: Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:51:47 +0200

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 01:34:17PM +0200, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 09:08:21AM -0500, Anthony J. Stuckey wrote:
> >     Since *EVERYBODY* seems to agree that the partial-movement-points-fails
> > patch is a good idea, I think the issue of absolute compatbility is already
> > settled as a no.

Hhm, I'm ambivalent on this. First I think it doesn't harm, to remove
the uncertainty about a move's success. And if it's good for the AI ...

But then it means every unit can move 2 tiles on the road plus one
off-road per turn. The advantage of alpine troops is reduced. The diffi-
culty of terrain changes, i.e. mountains are much easier to climb on.
Not to say civ 2 compatibility, it's on the roadmap at least.

(It's another issue: Do we still want to go civ2? Aren't we
already there? We could give it up, and then change some other
rules, too. But do it explicitely.)

I understand it's not an option to make it an option ;)

And I don't like the idea to change the rules so that the AI can 
handle it.

> I doubt it is a good idea.  If I understand correctly,
> it would mean that units with 0 < something < 1 moves left would
> always get to execute a move.   That really makes a difference in battle.
> Changing things like this without announcing is typical of Freeciv.
> I think it would be good to consult experienced players like Pille.


Christian Knoke     * * *
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.

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