[Freeciv-Dev] Re: nontransitive obsolescence (was: units.ruleset docu patch 2)

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 09:53:36PM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Yes, but you can already disband the old unit and buy a new one at little
> extra cost.  Only automated use can bring a signficant benefit.  And even
> then we are talking about infrequent situations.  Stealing Gunpowder to
> upgrade your Warriors or Phalanx to Musketeers would be a major feat,
> worthy of reward, from a gameplaying point of view.
> 

I was thinking that like Civ 3 sometimes it can be beneficial to leave no
upgrade path. It forces the player to use it or lose it, rather than always
having an up to date and powerful force.

<snip>
> > > 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.
> 
> No, but having each of 100 Phalanx automatically upgraded to Musketeers
> can give you some serious protection from Ironclad-induced decay on the
> outskirts of your citypox empire.  It's not likely to decide a game or
> anything.
> 
> If you even doubt *this* effect, can you mention any other situation in
> which the difference would matter to gameplay?
> 

I don't doubt the benefits of Leonardo. I think your choice of example is
fairly poor though.


> > I think the problem lies in the tech tree. Every other unit in Freeciv
> cannot
> > be
> > produced before researching its predecessor unless you trade techs. The
> bronze
> > working fix would make pikemen the same as all other units.
> 
> You do not understand what I wrote.  Perhaps I should be more explicit.
> 
> > > I think it would be much better to use the transitive closure.
> 
> A relation is transitive if for any a,b,c, if a relates to b and b to c,
> a also relates to c.  You are saying the problem arises because in the
> standard tech tree upgrading relation is not transitive when b is Pikemen,
> and clim that the proper solution is to fix it by adding the a to c relation
> there.  I dispute that: the problem is that the upgrading relation must be
> transitive in general, everywhere in a tech tree (e.g. for b is Phalanx)
> and in every tech tree (not only the default one).  And your solution
> (add a 'bridge' to the tech tree whenever a problem occurs to its author)
> doesn't really fix the problem, because users and even tech tree authors
> are very likely to assume that the upgrading relation is made transitive
> in the code, without requiring explicit transitive additions to the
> tech trees.
> 

I realise that. I just wanted a 'quick fix' rather than the do it the Right
Way.
I don't consider it too hard for a mod pack writer to figure out the benefits
of 
making sure that the tech tree for units is always transitive. After all, that
is how Freeciv has always done it, and so far the modpack writers don't seem to
care.

Even after saying that, your way is indeed better. I just thought it would be
much easier for me to implement the quick fix of making bronze working an
additional pre-req  for pikemen than your way.  
 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/