Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] nontransitive obsolescence (was: units.ruleset docu patch

[Freeciv-Dev] nontransitive obsolescence (was: units.ruleset docu patch

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] nontransitive obsolescence (was: units.ruleset docu patch 2)
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:42:12 +0100

> > The argument is that since you haven't researched phalanx, there is no 
> > upgrade path from warriors to pikemen.  So although you would never want 
> > to build warriors anymore, they're not really "obsolete" since this 
> > implies "upgradeable".


> > I'd argue that they should be made "obsolete" so that they cannot be 
> > built anymore, but not be upgradeable since there is no upgrade path. 

Yes, that was the argument.

From a 'realism' point of view, it doesn't make sense.

If Pikemen obsolete Phalanx (i.e. once you can build Pikemen you *can
no longer build* Phalanx!) why would you be required to know how to
build Phalanx in order to upgrade anything to Pikemen?  If we can train
new recruits as Pikemen, why should it require the knowledge how to train
them as Phalanx (*which we can no longer apply to train Phalanx*) before
existing units can be retrained to be Pikemen?  It's nonsensical.

> I fully agree with your proposal. The alternative is to make bronze
> working(pre-req for phalanx) one of the pre-reqs for pikemen. This neatly
> solves the entire issue.

It depends on what you mean by 'neat'.

This feature adds expressive power: it causes nontransitive obsolescence
relations to differ, in the game, from their transitive closures.
The main effect: it limits the power of Leonardo's on techs a player
hasn't obtained by researching their full paths.

But these differences are counterintuitive and only surface in exceptional
circumstances.  There ought to be warnings both to the unsuspecting user
who fails to see his units upgraded, and to the ruleset author who
unwittingly creates these nontransitive obsolescence relations.

I think it would be much better to use the transitive closure.


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