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: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:36:07 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Raahul Kumar wrote:

> [snip]
> 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?
> [snip]

It leaves making Iron working replace warrior code as a pre-req for

This makes phalanxes come before pikemen and legions before knights.  It
does not effect monarchy vs. republic, nor does it cause significantly
more confusion than warrior code requiring bronze working.  Furthermore,
it makes some sense logically/historically (I wouldn't recomend a bronze
pike, and the warrior-aristocracy of feudalism goes well with iron

I recognize that many things in the current tech tree make limited sense,
but as long as we're changing it, let's change it *right*.

As to gameplay, bronze->warriorcode would make it take longer to develop
real offensive units, and make horsemen even more dominant in the ancient
world.  Iron->feudalism would delay the pikemen/knights stage, and make it
nessesary to be proficient with chariots/archers/legions/catapults

P.S. any ruleset change is going to confuse and surprise people -- maybe
it should wait foor a version-numer release?

--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."

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