Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: units.ruleset docu patch 2

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: units.ruleset docu patch 2

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: units.ruleset docu patch 2
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:39:48 -0800 (PST)

--- Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 05:36:03PM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > This is implemented in a very annoying way. Phalanx obsolete warriors, but
> > Pikemen do not. Since Pikemen obsolete phalanx, and phalanx obsolete
> warriors, gaining feudalism should result in the removal of warriors. This 
> really annoys me!
> Yes.  What has been discussed before (but I can't find it in the archives) is
> the case where you can build Pikemen, but uyou do not have the tech for 
> Phalanx.  It was argued that in this case, your Warriors should not be 
> upgradeable to Pikemen.

I'm not quite clear on what the argument could possibly be. I see no possible
reason to build warriors over pikemen. 
> > Basically, I would like like to see some intelligence in deciding if units
> are obsolete. If A is made obsolete by B, and B is made obsolete by C, if you
> gain the ability to build C, A should also be made obsolete.
> It was concluded (in that discussion) that this should not happen.

I disagree.

> -- 
> Reinier 

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]