On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> I'm opposed to removing embassies from the game code.  It's required for
> proper civ* emulation support -- better to make everything configurable.
>
> Seems to me that the entire project is forking.

Your attitude is not very constructive. I can understand that some people 
want my rules changes to be in a separate branch, since rules changes need 
much tweaking, and nobody not want a repeat of the 2.1 release process. It 
does not make much difference if this rules changes branch is called trunk 
or something else, except that trunk makes it more official and more 
attention may be given to changes done there, which is essential for rules 
changes.

The "make everything configurable" issue has been debated over and over on 
this list, and I had hoped that we would have come further than to repeat 
it again now. Some configurability item have *very* high costs in terms of 
development time, user interface complexity, maintainability and AI 
complexity, and IMHO we need to simplify some rules to allow much better 
configuratibility elsewhere. It took a lot of discussion before we could 
remove random movement, and I have never heard anyone who have missed it. 
On the other hand, we still do not have AI support for bombardment, 
several years after it was added.

Also, we cannot, for instance, allow much scripting control over city 
actions as long as the present citizen-working-tiles system is in place. 
Scripting control over diplomacy requires that the underlying diplomacy 
system is well defined and well understood by the AI. In short, 
configurability and scripting requires that some parts of the rules are 
set in stone and streamlined.

IMHO, Freeciv is and should be a game of its own, not a payciv emulator.

   - Per

_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to