From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-08-29 21:39:06
|
> By the way, wouldn't it be more useful to create a separate gametype? > Otherwise you will not be able to combine the existing variants with the two > map types. I understood, that Coalfields/Schlesien was a variant of standard 1835. But if you want to be able to mix elements of different variants at will, we'll have to rethink what a "variant" is. In this specific case, one approach could be to configure the map type as a new game option, for instance: <GameOption name="MapVariant" values="Standard,Schlesien" default="Standard" /> A different approach could be to configure the start packet distribution scheme as a game option, for instance <GameOption name="InitialRoundType" values="Standard,Snake,Clemens" default="Standard" /> but in this case the behaviour is hardcoded, so we'll have to change some code (no big deal). Or we could do both. Perhaps that's the most flexible approach? Then we would no longer have the "Variant" option, at least for now. Thinking again, perhaps we still need "Variant" for Clemens, because there is a lot more to the Clemens variant than just the start packet distribution. IIRC, at least some of the Clemens specialties have not even been implemented yet. And there are a lot more 1835 variants that we haven't yet considered, and I fear that at least some of these would not mix well with the Coalfields/Schlesien map extension. This is no simple matter. In any case, I don't want to promote variants to separate games. That would create a maintenance nightmare. Comments from the group on this matter would be welcome. Erik. |