Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv Developers ML <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:21:09 +0000 (GMT)


On 17 Feb 2003, Davide Pagnin wrote:

> On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 12:25, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> > On 17 Feb 2003, Davide Pagnin wrote:
> > > I've found my originalproposal, look at:
> > >
> > >
> > > That proposal, is obviously ok for me.
> > > There are some point of agreement and other that are different, we can
> > > work to have a single proposal.
> > 
> > Can you post your disagreements? My proposal attempts to be simpler. I
> > like clear, simple rules, as you probably have understood already.
> > 
> I think that rules in my proposal are simple, perhaps something has to
> be changed, but the architecture seems good IMHO.
> For what it counts, Gregory Berkolaiko agreed explicitly with my
> proposal (but asked for keeping rules simple) and Ross Wetmore was the
> third to agree.

Per asked you a very good question, and I don't see an answer to it in 
your email:
        Please state the points to which you diagree.

I just reread your proposal and IMO it is _very_ similar to what Per 
suggests.  The only real difference is the expiration of "contact", in 
Per's case it's 1 turn.  We can do it as as server variable, but I would 
prefer not, really.

Another point which is not in Per's proposal is that Intelligence Report 
is only available once you have an embassy, but this is implicit in his 
proposal.  Extension of IR, discussed in you proposal should be done in a 
separate patch.

If I didn't notice something, please point it out.


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