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

[Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
> > 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.
> 

I'm not with you old chap. I have no idea what warrior code is supposed to be
in
the game, but it allows you to build archers. I have never heard of archers
with
pre-bronze tech. Maybe they exist but all of the archers I have ever head of
all used iron tipped arrows.

The reason I selected warrior code was because that was the only tech on the
feudalism path with free pre-reqs.

The kind of feudalism with knights clearly involves iron working. Iron working
is *always* preceded by bronze working. Is this clear? No one goes from stone
weapons and clubs to pikemen without discovering bronze working in between.

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

I agree that iron working and monarchy make much more sense as pre-reqs for
feudalism. Ours not to question why, merely to do or die. That still does not
solve the problem of making warriors obsolete.

> 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.

I've never found a use for warriors in any situation ever. I have to point out
that this patch is only for the default ruleset. The Civ 2 ruleset still allows
you the joy of building warriors/phalanxes till the pikemen come. Kapeesh?

> 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. 

Hardly the point. The point is that you cannot build mech inf without
developing
the tech for riflemen. Contrast this to the pikemen/phalanx situation. 

I also want you to contrast the current situation

warriors replaced by phalanx, phalanx replaced by pikemen. Clearly it was
intended that pikemen replace warriors. It makes no sense that if tanks replace
cavalry that you would still build dragoons. Correct?


> > 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
> 

I'll fix that next if people actually care. It's just never been a huge problem
for me. This warrior/pikemen/phalanx issue has annoyed me ever since Civ 2 came
out. People still have a use for frigates even if they can build destroyers.
They might not have transports yet, so this situation is hardly the same.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/