From: Brett L. <wak...@ea...> - 2005-03-03 02:40:06
|
For configuring options, I recommend taking a look at Colossus (= http://colossus.sf.net ). I think they do a good job of balancing in-game or pre-game options versus= specialties of variant game types. Granted, their game isn't going to have= quite the extent of "special rules" that we are, but I think it's a good= place to look at for some inspiration. I agree that we're going to have to split out two classes of options:= *mostly* game-independant (e.g. Use an extra optional "6" train, or Bank= starts with X value, etc), and game specific (e.g. Formation of the= Canadian National Railway in 1856). The other option is having a single catch-all user-defined game type where= the user can select the base ruleset (e.g. the user selects that he wants= to play a game with the 1825 ruleset) and from there, certain= customizations are then made available and tailored to what is reasonable= within each ruleset (e.g. an extra 6 train isn't reasonable for a game= that has no 6 trains at all.). Off the top of my head, allowing for a randomly constructed map and= user-defining the total amount of cash in the bank are probably two out of= only a handful of options that is _truly_ game independant. ---Brett. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 3/2/2005 at 8:46 PM Erik Vos using eri...@hc... declared: > >There is one interesting idea that I would add, inspired on message #238 >from Gregor Zeitlinger: creating subclasses for game-specific processes. > >The question is to what extent we can configure options in a config file. >At some point things might get so complicated or game-specific that we >need to write special code. >The idea is to do that in game-specific subclasses of generic classes >which handle the more common cases. > >A strong example is the Ferdinandea Secession in 1841, which I don't think >we can make configurable - we will need game-specific code for that. ********** REPLY SEPARATOR END ********** This message sent with 100% recycled electrons. |