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: Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] Fixing Warriors (PR#1351)
From: Raahul Kumar <raahul_da_man@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:28:00 -0800 (PST)

--- Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 09:00:38PM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> Maybe the solution for this would be to make obsoletion transitive, that
> means if a unit obsoletes another unit, all units made obsolete by that
> other unit also become obsolete, a.s.o. What is Civ 2 behaviour here?

Civ 2 behaviour is that warriors are obsoleted by phalanx, phalanx by pikemen.
Warriors are not obsoleted by pikemen. It doesn't matter what Civ 2 behaviour
is anyway. I have left(because of Per) the Civ 2 ruleset strictly alone.

The transitive function does make sense, and Reinier and I have already
discussed it. The only question, and this is a very important question, is
who's going to implement it? I'm too busy with the AI to bother with ruleset
stuff. No one else is even interested. If you want a transitive tech tree
parser, Christian, it's up to you.

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

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