[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Diplomacy

[Davide Pagnin <nightmare@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 17:18, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Davide Pagnin wrote:
> 
> this was accidentally a private conversation, bringing back to the list.
> 
> > 
> > (This is only a introduction)
> > I'm astonized, how could people use "realism" to suggest or even force
> > his own ideas and then, when other use the same argument, argue that
> > isn't appliable.
> > 
> > > The upkeep cost of one is minutiae compared to the other problems. Also
> > > think about the cost-benefit analysis. You're already planning on making
> > > embassies have less benefits, yes? Now you want to add more costs?
> > > 
> 
> be astonished: you miss my point I think. I'm all for realism, but only as 
> a secondary goal. The primary goal is to make the game fun. In this case my
> opinion is that you are proposing a 'realism' aspect that is minute compared 
> to others, like why isn't an embassy located in a particular city? I mean

Please, go back in the thread, and look at this, I have pointed out that
we should consider to establish the embassy in the capital of the
nation, as it is normally. 
(This means nothing to the point of the discussion, but perhaps do
demonstrate that I have a clear idea of what realistic aspects are...)

> compared to upkeep this a massively unrealistic aspect of embassies! In any
> case, maintaining an embassy is tiny compared to the cost of fielding an
> army, yet we have 'free' units...

This is OT, but, nationwide upkeep for units isn't that bad idea...

> 
> > Having an upkeep for maintaining an embassy is a good idea, and having
> > the code to support such an option is a good idea, if you don't like it
> > then having it disabled in the default ruleset is a good idea, but
> > nevertheless having it enabled in the history ruleset remains a good
> > idea. stop.
> 
> sure, and playing freeciv on a globe instead of a cylinder is a great idea,
> but good ideas don't necessarily make them so.

Then we have to talk about of the complexity and opportunity of
implementing such an idea, not discuss to implement or not that idea.

> 
> > I've suggested this idea and it is common to suggest ideas during the
> > preparation of a patch that is going to modify something, in a
> > significant way. I'll do a poor job to freeciv if I look blindly to
> > others proposal and don't suggest what I think are good idea.
> 
> sure.
> 
> > I'm not planning of making embassies less beneficial, I'm planning the
> > contrary, but under Per proposal, it is not possible to have those
> > beneficial go in, in this first patch, because he refuses to
> > think/code/have proposal, to implement the so far called "spy network"
> > concept.
> 
> and that's his perogative, he seems to be the only one coding.

Sorry Mike, I've already pointed out that forcing an implementation or a
change of something in the code, only by the fact that the coder like
one idea instead of another, isn't a reasonable approach (IMHO)

>  
> > In my original proposal, there were clues of what should be  benefit of
> > an embassy, which I think is the "public" interface of the "spy
> > network". Having an embassy, should give you information on other nation
> > sciences, production, researches, number of units.
> > And perhaps even more hints, if you take some some risks and pay for
> > them.
> > 
> > I think that implementing now a feature that will be useful in a second
> > time (that is when there will be the "spy network" part).
> > 
> > I refuse also to consider that introducing upkeep for embassy is
> > something complex to code or support.
> 
> well, as they say: put up or shut up. Per seems to think it will be
> anoyingly complex. If you don't, let's see the code, and Per will consider 
> it. Otherwise, don't hold up development on this for an idea of a hook into
> future features.

I have not seen from Per, a mail that say that adding upkeep code is
complex, anyway, at the moment we are talking about what we are going to
do/accept, I've not seen even a bit of code, and then arguing about the
burder of writing something isn't part of the question.

Provided this, I have no problem if we decide that "embassy upkeep" is a
good thing and should go in, but is a separate patch from the one in
discussion and then can be written by another developer.
Is this clearer?

>  
> -mike

        Ciao, Davide