OK I apologise that I have a lot to say here.ġ. Maybe I'm really wrong in my current thinking and would like people to point out other arguments, methods, and so on. I propose we open this conversation up again. Lexxie wrote:But somehow it led to reverting the super awesome excellent idea of the great new ACTION_SENTRY action. It is a false claim that being on sentry would NEVER have a different result from that same unit smoking marijuana by the jungle campfire (idle activity state.) What you didn't think about is, rulesets already exist which need to distinguish this exact difference in state, and the subject came up precisely for that reason, because the feature was wisely being put in by someone, then someone who is stuck in status quo Civ1/2 thinking said we would never need that. The situation here is that you can't conceive of Sentry ever being an actually important function or state of being that in some cases with some kinds of units in some kinds of rules. In reality, wars can be won or lost based on whether a unit was on sentry or was sleeping, eating a meal, or writing a letter back home. that same unit being idle." I would argue, sir, that this claim of yours is BS. You are saying it is BS my claim, but, is it true? Do you make that claim that "under no conditions in existence, ever, would a different trigger/cause or result come, from a unit being on sentry guard, vs.
Everything is about states, conditions, and what is triggered from those states and conditions. When making rules, you tie rules to states. Freeciv is a game engine and I am making a philosophic point. I agree that having more actions and unit states with ruleset-defined effects would be useful, but trying to shoehorn Sentry into that role is bs.
0 kommentar(er)
