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: Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx, bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:26:45 -0800 (PST)

--- Daniel L Speyer <dspeyer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > --- 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.
> > 
> Bronze arrowheads were used throughout the classical mediterranean and
> stone (flint or obsidian) was used throughout pre-columbian north america.
> I'm not sure exactly what warrior code is either, but it soulds like it
> involves the extra discipline and dedication needed to master archery
> (whereas anyone can wield a club).   There's no need for bronze working
> here.

I'm not claiming that warrior code necessarily needs bronze working. IMO 
it's stupid to have bronze working as a pre-req for Monarchy. What does that
leave me?

It certainly makes no sense with ceremonial burian and code of laws either.
The only vaguely plausible candidate was warrior code.

> > 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.
> At present, knights require chivalry requires horseback riding and
> feudalism requires warrior code and monarchy requires ... -- no
> metal-working is required.  I'd love to see a stone lance ;).  Your patch
> would make bronze working a pre-req (through warrior code), but would
> still not need iron working.  I'm dubious of a bronze lance either.

I am too, but at least a bronze lance would work much better than the current
stone age lance ;-).
> > 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.
> >

You didn't address my point above. I think my patch adds realism. Not perfect,
but better than the current situation.
> > > 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.
> > 
> Yes it does.  Pikemen require feudalism would require monarchy and iron
> working requires bronze working....  Therefore, you can't get pikemen
> before phalanxes (ignoring stolen tech, etc.).

This makes monarchy take longer than Republic. It just doesn't make sense that
the Republic form of government is available before monarchy. Monarchy is one
of the earliest forms of government. That is why I did not add bronze working
as a pre-req for monarchy. It also makes no logical sense. How does Bronze
working result in a monarchy?
I suggest you write your own patch and send it in. I'm busy with other AI
and I'm not really interested in rulesets. I only care about the things that
annoy me.

> I don't see why ours is not to reason why here; this isn't for Civ II
> compatibility, right?  That means its up to us to work it out.

Now you're forcing me to introduce big changes into Freeciv. I don't think the
maintainers will like a rational tech tree. They will claim *correctly* that
the current players will be confused. A little tinkering does not equal a
drastic change.

When I have some free time I will examine the tech tree and produce one that
makes sense. That is time is indefinitely in the future. You will probably see
flying cars before I produce a good tech tree.

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

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