[Freeciv-Dev] Re: teamslite11

["Anthony J. Stuckey" <astuckey@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:23:57PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > > > Last but not least there was the valid concern that the techs that the
> > > > AI gives away are harmful.
> > >
> > >   I'm unconvinced.
> > >   Game.researchcost is rarely defined to be so high that this would make
> > > much of a difference.It might be reasonable to take game.diplcost into
> > > consideration, but I don't think most people play with that set.
> >
> > if you're that concerned, make it a freecost()
> 
> You two are missing the point. Tech costs increase as you get more of
> them,

        I don't think I am.  I fully understand this point.  That was what my
first sentence said.  I accurately described method 0 below:  (And methods
1 and 2 invalidate any consideration of tech cost!)

(from common/tech.c:)
 tech_cost_style:
 0 - Civ (I|II) style. Every new tech add game.researchcost to the
     cost of the next tech.
 1 - Cost of technology is (1+num_parents)*researchcost, where
     num_parents == number of requirement for tech, counted recursively.
 2 - Cost are read from tech.ruleset. Missing costs are generated by
     style 1.

        Maybe you can explain if there was some other point that I am missing.
I didn't address techs that completely exclude certain development paths,
but I don't think we have any of those in any existent rulesets yet.

> and a team may want a division of labour between a research player
> and a warfaring player to avoid losing techs to recapture of cities or
> diplomats.

        This is a completely different issue.  Yes, it has some bearing on
whether or not a specific tech should be given to a team-mate.  Again, I'm
unconvinced.  Knowing what the behavior is, strategies can evolve around
it.