Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: January 1999:
[Freeciv] Civ I, Civ II, Freeciv comparison + one possible Freeciv impro

[Freeciv] Civ I, Civ II, Freeciv comparison + one possible Freeciv impro

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx (Freeciv users)
Subject: [Freeciv] Civ I, Civ II, Freeciv comparison + one possible Freeciv improvement (was: Just to start the game : happy end !!!)
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 19:32:57 +0100

>       Given all that's missing from Freeciv (diplomacy and embassies
> being the big ones) I'm not sure that I would call it complete.

You are mistaken.  Much of the Civ II diplomacy is still missing, but the
Civ I functionality is mostly there.  Game->Players 'Meet' and 'Intelligence'
will work after you've established an embassy using one of your diplomats.

> > I was once addicted to Civ I for a month or two.  I dislike Civ II (it
> > has far too much fluff to my taste); I've only played it once.
>       That's unfortunate, because Civ2 really is a better game.

True, and Freeciv shares most of its improvements, without all the
silliness.  (Music, silly animations, the ugly map display in which
everything disappears in a blur of green and brown spots; I got used to
it, but I didn't like it.)  My problems with Civ II are in its
interface.  And Freeciv adds more: the Internet, free source code and
active development, much better configurability.

>       The AI cheats in more subtle ways, (the Civ1 AI could just declare
> it had Wonders) certain units really do enhance the game -- partisans in
> particular, and there are many more options in world generation.

Freeciv is better in those respects, too, and it will improve further.

> > You an even break in into running games by connecting as an AI player.
> > There should probably be an option to disable this.
>       Why?  It's cheating, but you can't really affect the AI units.  So
> all you're gaining is information.

The main problem is the huge delay when the map is transferred.
For large maps and slow connections, the game can easily be interrupt
d for several minutes.  Just a

  notify_player(0,"Hang on, map is being transferred to player %s ...",

would at least inform the players what is going on.  Also, some humans
may not like to have others spying on their work after they leave a game
prematurely and are turned to AI.  (Not something I'd easily admit to doing,
but there we are.)

One idea: a server command to set the range of hosts from which a player
may be connected to.  The syntax could be borrowed from xhost.

Reinier Post                                             rp@xxxxxxxxxx

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