Follow-up Comment #11, patch #3432 (project freeciv):
> Is it possible to have 'extended' civil war nations spawn in a
> core nations game?
2.4 (patch #3449): not unless *all* other "core" nations run out, so, mostly
2.5 (patch #3448): not at all.
> If not then maybe it would be a good solution to add some
> non-core nations as non-playable nations to the core set,
> giving every core nation at least one related civil war nation.
Hm. I'm not sure the current solution would permit that. presumably you'd want
these "civil war" nations playable when using extended nations; one goal has
been to avoid having to fork any of the individual nation ruleset files; but
having nations playable in one context but not another would require that, I
think, unless we invent even more syntax. Plus I'm not sure that
non-playable-but-civil-war-able is supported currently (haven't checked).
Having extra unplayable "civil war" nations in core would meet the goal of not
overwhelming players, but would compromise the one about not overloading
translators -- they'd have to translate nearly double the number of nations.
(I suppose you could ignore the nation legends for these, but any
po-file-splitting arrangements are unlikely to make that distinction.)
> It seems I missed the Spanish... they should be in of course.
Who gets the chop from the "extras" to make room?
> Gallic could be represented by Celtic, British by English and
> Cambodian by Khmer. [...]
And I forgot that modern scenario format allows multiple nations to be
candidates for a starting position, so we can keep the existing
nation/position mappings as well (may require updating the format of
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list