[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4539) rules against smallpox (tutorials/nopox page)

["ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:50:15AM -0700, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:48:07AM -0700, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:35:35AM -0700, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:48:12AM -0700, Guest wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I like the suggestions for civil war et al.
> > > > 
> > > > By the way, ICS isn't so bad when you're playing with 29 AI players
> > > > intent on killing you.  I can barely hold on to one or two cities in
> > > > those circumstances.  The AI does it anyway, but it loses (well, 28 of
> > > > them lose, and a lucky one survives).  In other words, if you fill the
> > > > world up with loads and loads of players, no one can sprawl much.  This
> > > > argues for raising the 30-player ceiling.  
> > > > 
> > > > I'd _love_ to have a world with 100+ players (mostly AI), and difficulty
> > > > keeping my country together -- especially with the new AI diplomacy.

Try to team up more than 5 hard AI players. And win alone against them.
 
> > > I might accept a patch for this, but I warn you, that it will not be
> > > trivial. In fact it will be fiendishly complicated. It will also make
> > > savegames a nightmare.
> > 
> > Not to mention, it will potentially kill pubserver.
> 
> In case this isn't immediately obvious, I find (lots of) players on there
> now doing single player 29 AI games now because they don't even know how
> to start a server.  (Connection dialog where are you? ;)  Just imagine
> if they could do 100 AI games...

I think that _big_ maps and many AI-players should be possible on local
servers. For pubserver we don't need them. Why don't we write it into
the ruleset which is the maximum for that values. 

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jb: people are stupid, they don't want to learn.