Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3432 (project freeciv):

I assume this is at least partially in reaction to the recent discussion on
-i18n <http://mail.gna.org/public/freeciv-i18n/2012-06/msg00004.html>.

I had the same idea, and I think something like this is the most we'll be able
to do for S2_4. Some drawbacks:
* Even if the single player, or all human players, pick nations from the
"Core" group, there's no guarantee that all nations in the game will come from
it (although I assume the match=3 tries to encourage this). This becomes a
problem if we say it's OK for translators to only translate the "Core" nations
-- as a player, there's no way to ensure that you don't suddenly have
untranslated strings thrown at you from non-"Core" nations. This could
presumably happen if matching falls back, or perhaps more likely, in case of
civil war.
** I've been wondering about doing something more radical on trunk: having a
nationset choice that is orthogonal to or a subset of ruleset choice, so
instead of selecting from group "Core", there's a separate drop-down where you
select "Core" or "Extended" nations, each with their own groups. That way you
guarantee no nations outside the set will ever be chosen. I haven't thought
hard about what to do about civilwar nations pointing outside the set though,
and I doubt it can be done for 2.4.
* Conversely, the match=3 will presumably distort random nation selection
where the user is happy with using the extended set, such that the same old
"core" nations will tend to come up over and over rather than the full
richness of the extended nation set.
* "Core" is a bit of a soulless name for a nation group, but it's exactly what
I've been referring to this idea as in my head, and I haven't thought of a
better suggestion.

> It consists of nations that appear in the games from the 
> Civilization series: 
We've already got some of that with the separate civ1/civ2 nations.rulesets
that appeared in patch #2243. Presumably you list includes Civ3 and up too.

> Celtic will be added to the game in patch #3316 
[...]
> Is this still on time for 2_4?
I don't see anything in this patch that can't go on S2_4 in principle, if we
accept the drawbacks (although I don't think this patch will apply cleanly,
the differences should be trivial).

WRT patch #3316, we said we wouldn't put any more nations in S2_4, but I
daresay we could make an exception given the rationale.
(Note that civ2/nations.ruleset already has a "Celtic" nation, this being the
only one not covered in the default nations -- it's quite different from patch
#3316.)

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://gna.org/patch/?3432>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


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

Reply via email to