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: Freeciv Developers ML <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy
From: Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Feb 2003 13:37:07 +0100

> 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.
> G.

> This is Per's proposal resume:
>  - The "No Contact" status is removed from the list of treaties, since
> it doesn't play any role (it never did). Default will now be Neutral.

Well, some one other has proposed the idea of defining contact and
diplomatic status, as separate ideas. I have no strong feeling on this,
but I would like to consider this a little bit more.
Ideally, you should not start as Neutral to everyone (other nations that
you don't even know), I'd like more the idea of a "no agreement" status,
which clearly points out that no word or feeling are considerer in the
two sides. 

>  - "Contact with X" is redefined as "one of your ground units have
> been adjacent to one of player X's ground units this turn".

>From this, IMHO, it seems that contact duration is FOREVER, not 1
turn... Which is exactly opposite of my countdown proposal.

>  - If you have embassy or contact with a player, you can meet with 
> him/her (this turn). The possibility of meet through contact is 
> regulated with a server option, which defaults to on.

This is part of my proposal also, but the meeting options without
embassy should be limited.

> - You can give away an embassy to the other player as part of the
> diplomatic meeting.

I'm against this one, because the sacrifice of a diplomat, or at least
some other particular actions, should be needed.
one side note, for example, this option should be unavailable if writing
hasn't been discovered by one of the sides. 

> - Shared vision requires an embassy.

On this I can agree.

The IR Part of my proposal, should be considered part of it, because by
removing the fact that you need an embassy to have a meeting, the
importance of an embassy decreases as well, and then in the game
balance, the whole mechanics has to be changed, not only one part.

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