Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Transitivity of Obsolescence (PR#40)

[dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Chris Buchanan <csbuchan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Reinier Post said:

> > This is known.  Stealing/conquering technology would become more fruitful
> > if transitivity was implemented.  It may or may not be considered a bug.
> 
> I can't see how. In this situation, I can build Musketeers; how I came
> out possessing Gunpowder is irrelevant. The question is why should I
> need Feudalism to make Phalanx units obsolete. Once I can build Musketeers,
> Phalanx units *are* obsolete in all ways, if only not in theory; nobody's
> going to build them. The only reason that they haven't disappeared from 
> the buildlist (and added to the upgrade list) is that Pikemen haven't
> been invented yet. Remember, this isn't the same issue as allowing
> someone from the Stone Ages to steal Mobile Warfare and building Armour;

Yet, if someone from the Stone Ages steals Mobile Warfare, then
under the current rules they _can_ then build Armor.  This does
seem strange, but I'm not sure what to do about it.  Perhaps
limits techs obtained from stealing/trading to only techs which 
are not too far ahead of what you already know.

What the Stone Age thieves currently _cannot_ do in this situation
is to upgrade their Chariots direct to Armor, which would be the 
equivalent (just more extreme) to what you are suggesting for 
Phalanx -> Musketeers.  (And Chariots _don't_ become obsolete
in this situation, which makes sense to me.)

(Another minor point is that Leonardo's Workshop currently
upgrades units "incrementally", so you would have to do
something special there.)

> my People know Gunpowder, and everything leading up to it. The fact
> that I got there without learning Feudalism first shouldn't impact the
> fact the Musketeers do, in reality, obsolete Phalanx units.

Regards,
-- David