[Freeciv-Dev] Re: treaties and embassies (PR#2274)

[Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 13:13, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > Let's start over.
> > 
> > The problem is that you can have a treaty with a player that you do not
> > have an embassy to, and you therefore need a dialog for diplomats that
> > enter allied cities.
> > 
> > When I think about it, I realize that of course this isn't just because of
> > Marco Polo's and civil war, but it can also happen simply because the
> > other player made an embassy and suggested the treaty.
> > 
> > There is, I think, only one realistic way of solving this, and that is by
> > having both sides get (permanent) embassies to each other when entering an
> > alliance. This makes good sense for in-game reasons, since alliance
> > partners are supposed to be sharing such information.
> 
> Just as realistic is to say that you can only ally if both sides already 
> have embassies.

Correct.
Just to point this out, before I forget.

> 
> Per, I agree with you that making feature sacrafices to greatly reduce 
> code complexity can be good.  But if civ2 compatability is still a goal, 
> then that is hard to reconcile.  OTOH civ2 wasn't designed as a 

civ2 compatibility is not more a project goal.

feature sacrifices is neither a project goal, AFAIK...

> multiplayer game, and some features of it that won't work with 
> multiplayer have already been changed.  What we have to decide is: is 
> this such a feature?

IMHO, it is a good feature.
By similar reasoning, shared vision should be given with an alliance,
and moreover, should be given from one side to the other and
viceversa...

(I'm talking of embassies not hard linked to alliances)


About Marco Polo's I think that there is not need to sacrifice civ2
compatibility and making it's effect one shot.
But this is debatable, and I don't know how much code will be simplified
from this.

> 
> jason