[Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, John Wheeler wrote:
> > I do agree that having to establish an embassy with a
> > diplomat before conducting any diplomacy is a major
> > pain.However, I don't like the idea that just
> > because one person sent around a trireme many
> > centuries ago, he can do allthe diplomacy he wants.
> > (Think of Leif Ericson and the Native Americans
> > exchanging technology in 1400.) Rather, I would prefer
> > that diplomacy requires either an embassy or *being
> > in* contact, i.e., having a unit adjacent to a unit of
> > the target country.
>
> If we implement it as "embassy OR adjacent to unit of target nation",
> would anyone still want the old setting? I don't want to add more useless
> and unused server settings.
I like John's idea. Maybe with an alteration: you can do diplomacy if you
have an embassy or had a unit adjacent to the target nation's unit/city
this turn. Then make_contact can be easily adapted to save the turn the
contact was made and diplo code can check this trun to be current.
I am against a server option because it defeats the main purpose behind
Per's request -- to make AI diplomacy easier.
G.
- [Freeciv] Diplomacy, Per I. Mathisen, 2003/02/13
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Adam Czachorowski, 2003/02/13
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, John Wheeler, 2003/02/13
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Per I. Mathisen, 2003/02/14
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy,
Gregory Berkolaiko <=
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, John Wheeler, 2003/02/14
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Reinier Post, 2003/02/14
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Andrey Kotrekhov, 2003/02/18
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Per I. Mathisen, 2003/02/18
- [Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Gregory Berkolaiko, 2003/02/18
[Freeciv] Re: Diplomacy, Christian Knoke, 2003/02/14
|
|