Re: What to do with Xconq

[Stan Shebs <shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com>]

Martin Burke wrote:

> One of my long time questions comes from not really understanding the
> history or inner
> workings of the game itself.  I used to play in the lab at my university,
> where we were
> running mwm on Solaris workstations.  The game looked and played far far
> different
> from what I see when playing on a Redhat Linux machine running kde.  I
> didn't play the
> game for about 3 years between systems, so I was wondering if it looked so
> different
> solely because mwm and Solaris are so much superior to kde and Linux, or if
> a lot of
> coding had taken place, or for some other reason.  To tie this into the
> topic at hand...I
> think the game I played at school felt more like a finished game than the
> one I play now,
> which I attribute to cleaner graphics and a sharper interface (so I agree
> with Stan's
> proposed focus in that area).

Do you happen to remember version numbers?  The "power of X" does allow
for locally-modified resource files to have a drastic effect on the
appearance of the game, but that would be confined to window decorations;
the map and unit graphics are supposed to be the same... Another thing
that can happen is that systems with 8-bit displays will run out of
colors, and colors will be random.  Or perhaps you were playing 5.6,
which was a Motif version?

> Something else I think would be a good focus would be coming up with another
> name.
> Not that I have any problem with 'xconq', but new players without my years
> of enjoyment
> behind them might be more attracted to something else.

Oh no, not a name change! :-)  How about inventing a long name for which
XCONQ is the acronym? (eXperimental Colostomy On Ninja Quasits, or perhaps
something less bizarre... :-) )

Stan