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

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

[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: nontransitive obsolescence (was: units.ruleset docu patch 2)
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:53:36 -0800 (PST)

--- Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 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".
> Yes.
> > > 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.

Interesting. That means people can always maintain an up-to-date force if they
have the cash just by paying for upgrades.

> > 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.

I doubt that. By the time Leonardo's available(invention), the player would
normally have no warriors.

> 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 the problem lies in the tech tree. Every other unit in Freeciv cannot
produced before researching its predecessor unless you trade techs. The bronze
working fix would make pikemen the same as all other units.

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

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

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