Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)
From: Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:25:56 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> This patch fixes the problem of warriors, phalanx and pikemen. The problem?
> Since there is only one obsolete by field, warriors can be made obsolete by
> only one unit, either phalanx or pikemen. Unfortunately, you can have pikemen
> without bronze working, so the original freeciv solution of making warriors
> obsolete by phalanx meant that people who went straight to feudalism still had
> warriors on their build menu.
> There is now a fix in CVS that makes warriors obsolete by pikemen. While an 
> improvement, this means that phalanx no longer obsoletes warriors. This is 
> bad!
> This patch makes Bronze Working a pre-req for Warrior Code. Warriors are
> obsoleted by phalanx, and pikemen obsoletes phalanx.

This seems rather historically inappropriate -- there is no logical reason
for warrior code to require bronze working, and many cultures (think
native Americans) developed them in the opposite order.

Maybe iron working should be a requirenment for feudalism.  This is
historically reasonable, makes some sense, and makes legions come before

Gameplaywise, though, I prefer having warriors and phalanxes available
simultaneously.  Sometimes, I just want a cheaper unit, especially if I'm
about to attack, so it doesn't make any difference.

Since making phalanxes obsolete warriors does make sense, what would
people think about allowing units which are only obsolete by one?  It
seems realistic enough: not everyone abandoned muskets the instant rifles
were invented.  By the time mech. inf. came around, they basically
had.  It seems to me that learning leadership shouldn't be a military
disadvantage because it makes horse units more expensive, when they just
take ironclad-blasted cities anyway -- but that's how it is.

> [snip]
> dragoons -> cavalry -> tanks
> musketeers -> riflemen -> mechanised infantry

Side note: do mech. inf. obsolete riflemen?  I thought not.

> etc.
> Nowhere else in Freeciv can you build a sucessor unit without going through 
> the intermediate stages. You must go A -> B -> C, rather than A -> C.

frigate -> ironclad -> destroyer
frigate -> destroyer

--Daniel Speyer
If you *don't* consider sharing information to be morally equivalent to 
kidnapping and murder on the high seas, you probably shouldn't use the
phrase "software piracy."

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

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