This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: Freeciv vs. Xconq
- To: shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com
- Subject: Re: Freeciv vs. Xconq
- From: Hans Ronne <hronne at pp dot sbbs dot se>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:00:24 +0100
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <l03130300b5fffc193f56@[212.112.3.129]>
>Hans Ronne wrote:
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is that Civ2 (or Freeciv) is a game. Xconq is
>> not. It's a tool or a platform for writing entirely new games.
>
>Freeciv actually aspires to be a game platform. It has about a
>half-dozen or so rulesets right now, and there's work underway to
>extend to SMAC and other Civ-like games. That's one of the reasons
>it's very interesting to me; while Xconq is fairly criticized as
>trying to be *too* general everywhere, Freeciv is edging into
>generality piecemeal. It remains to be seen whether Freeciv will
>hit a complexity wall before it achieves its goal of supporting
>the gamut of Civ-like games.
I see. I was not aware of that. Of course, it makes sense to fix some
problems and limitations when you rewrite a game. So does Freeciv allow
more unit types now than Civ2? I think that is the single most important
limitation in Civ2.
Hans
Hans Ronne
hronne@pp.sbbs.se