Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [Freeciv-i18n] Nations in Freeciv
Michael Bauer writes:
> 20/06/2012 02:05, sgrìobh Jacob Nevins:
>> At most, IMO, some of the existing content gets moved into some kind of
>> expansion pack which there's no obligation to translate, but whose
>> continued existence is otherwise accommodated.
>
> You've actually given me an idea there. If such a thing as an
> expansion pack could be done [...], then we
> could go with very short explanations in core and the extended ones
> via an expansion. That way we wouldn't lose anything.
I'm trying to avoid solutions that involve having more than one copy of
an individual nation file in existence... if we have two
spanish.rulesets, they're bound to get annoyingly out of sync (compare
the civ1/civ2 specials, which I recently harmonised the strings of as
much as possible to avoid gratuitous strings differences for
translators).
> (which, incidentally, we might also
> want to consider for those map editing aspects, I like the game and
> I play but I'm unlikely to ever build a map, if that could be
> separated out, that would help make stuff more manageable)
I don't think the existence of the editor gets in the way much as a
player if you don't invoke it, so I assume you mean the strings are
getting in your way as a translator.
The thing about the editor is that it's much easier to implement and
keep up to date as part of the client than as a separate program,
because it can share lots of the same functionality used when playing.
(There was once a separate editor program, civworld, so things have
moved in the other direction.)
So unlike the nationsets, there's no realistic prospect of it becoming
separate again.
Are the extra strings from the editor that onerous?
>> * More, finer-grained nation groups, and maybe subgroups ("Europe/Baltic").
>> [...]
>> * More sophisticated UI for selecting nation groups. Being able to
>> [...]
>> * Make more use of the interrelationships embedded in the nations.
>> [...]
>> * Geographic selection: pick nations from a world map. Maybe augmented
>> [...]
> I think those are interesting development ideas but nothing really
> that helps us around the length issue of the nations (for
> translators).
Indeed not. See my other proposal for a deal that is perhaps more good
for you.
> If we go with the above (sorry, slow brain) approach of a short set
> and a long set, would it be hard to code to have the long set appear
> via some sort of Expand button?
See other post for long-term proposal in that vein. Basically: it's
possible to implement this, yes.
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [Freeciv-i18n] Nations in Freeciv (was: S2_4 nation updates)
> Whew, I unleashed something here. Jos has found this discussion, but it
> ought to have been on -dev as well as -i18n, so that other nation
> contributors have a chance to join in.
Yes. We should at least contact Andrzej.
> I think there's two things here: whether all these nations are enhancing
> the game and belong in the core Freeciv distribution at all (ignoring
> for a moment the impact on translators), and if so, how to help players
> navigate them, and then there's managing the impact on the translation
> team specifically.
>
> Personally, I'm quite fond of our nation collection; I think it's pretty
> cool that there exists this growing GPL'd set of nation descriptions,
> with flags, cities, leaders, relationships (civil_war, conflicts_with)
> and potted histories (from which I've learnt some stuff), of consistent
> quality, all curated by a qualified historian.
> I accept that's not necessarily a reason that it has to live in the core
> of Freeciv, though.
That's my feeling as well. I like being able to choose between a lot of nations
including obscure ones, and it doesn't hurt having them in anyway. But at the
same time it shouldn't become a nuisance for players who don't care much for
having a multitude of nations.
> * More, finer-grained nation groups, and maybe subgroups ("Europe/Baltic").
>This would also help automatic nation selection; if I select some
>Baltic duchy, it'd be kind of cool if the game is specific enough to
>throw six other Baltic duchy AIs into the game with me.
>Requires re-classifying existing nations, and for period-based
>grouping, probably some scholarly discussion and compromise (see
>"Early Modern" discussion in et al).
>
> * More sophisticated UI for selecting nation groups. Being able to
>filter on the intersection of Ancient AND African, for example, to
>get down to a manageable list to browse. Don't really know how to
>make this intuitive (I'd try Ctrl-clicking on the nation group tabs
>to select more than one, but it's not very discoverable).
I like these ideas; it would allow for thematic games.
> If we are to be ruthless and somehow divide the nations into "core" and
> "extended" ones, well, I have no idea where to start :) I'd want to
> leave that up to Jos & co, if they are willing.
The core nations could be all nations that have appeared in one of the
Civilization games. That would be 40-something nations, which seems like a
manageable number. Actually, it might be a good idea to introduce a "core"
nation group already in addition to the already existing nation groups. It
could replace 'ancient' as the group that appears first when selecting a nation
so that people who don't want to plow through large nation lists can pick a
core one immediately.
> re incompleteness/imbalance: I wouldn't judge by the current snapshot of
> nations, since there's been a continuous flow of them for years. Jos can
> probably comment further, but suggests that
> they're approaching it continent-by-continent, so some areas are going
> to be fatter than others while that's going on.
For some time I was making mothern nations based on the list of countries by
population, but apart from that it's mostly random. All but two modern nations
(Palau and Tuvalu) are included in the game now, three if you count Azawad. I
have a list of nations that could be included (attached) but I don't have any
systematic approach of which nations I make then. I usually just make a nation
when I feel like it, though of course it often happens that I make a couple of
geographically or historically related ones together. As far as I can tell
Andrzej has the same approach.
> re in-game confusion caused by Poles vs Greater Poles etc:
> conflicts_with already exists and is maintained to discourage nations
> with confusingly similar names or flags from appearing in the same game.
> I checked a couple of the examples listed as confusingly similar, and
> they are marked as conflicting.
On a related issue, it would be a good idea if the borders of flags and shields
could be in the player color rather than default black. It would make
identification slightly easier and as an additional plus we could have separate
designs for flags and shields (cropping it out of the same source as used for
the flag sometimes leads to ridiculous shield imagines).
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [Freeciv-i18n] Nations in Freeciv
20/06/2012 02:05, sgrìobh Jacob Nevins:
Whew, I unleashed something here. Jos has found this discussion, but it
ought to have been on -dev as well as -i18n, so that other nation
contributors have a chance to join in.
I'll cc dev but not sure if I'm signed up...
I'm definitely not for permanently throwing away the hard work of Jos,
Andrzej et al, by deleting nations outright, chopping down legends etc.
I think deletion has clearly turned out to be a lead balloon, perhaps we
should drop it from the debates?
At most, IMO, some of the existing content gets moved into some kind of
expansion pack which there's no obligation to translate, but whose
continued existence is otherwise accommodated.
You've actually given me an idea there. If such a thing as an expansion
pack could be done (which, incidentally, we might also want to consider
for those map editing aspects, I like the game and I play but I'm
unlikely to ever build a map, if that could be separated out, that would
help make stuff more manageable), then we could go with very short
explanations in core and the extended ones via an expansion. That way we
wouldn't lose anything.
* More, finer-grained nation groups, and maybe subgroups ("Europe/Baltic").
[...]
* More sophisticated UI for selecting nation groups. Being able to
[...]
* Make more use of the interrelationships embedded in the nations.
[...]
* Geographic selection: pick nations from a world map. Maybe augmented
[...]
I think those are interesting development ideas but nothing really that
helps us around the length issue of the nations (for translators).
nation material from everything else and present two pot-files, and
document that translation of the nations.pot is strictly optional, to
encourage new locales.
If we go with the above (sorry, slow brain) approach of a short set and
a long set, would it be hard to code to have the long set appear via
some sort of Expand button?
re links to Wikipedia: These will probably rot due to wiki notability
fads over the years, and need maintenance :(
We could host the extended nation legends on Wikia...
re "imaginary" nations: These are popular. I agree with Daniel; I don't
think we should get rid of them.
Ok ok I get it :)))
Michael
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
