Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: December 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2464) patch: restrict techs by nation
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2464) patch: restrict techs by nation

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2464) patch: restrict techs by nation
From: "Raimar Falke via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:49:11 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:41:04AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> > > I don't see any advantages of this over my code. To the contrary, it looks
> > > much more complicated, both in terms of code and ruleset author
> > > understanding. The readability of such a tech.ruleset will be very hard.
> >
> > It _may_ require more code but I think that the effect is that the
> > ruleset will become easier. You only have to add "Root" to the root
> > techs. Finished. In your proposal the information is duplicated (in
> > the requirements and in the allowed nations). And the code can
> > calculate the one from the other.
> 
> The total number of characters that are necessary to be added to the
> ruleset will be fewer, yes. But it will be much harder to visualise what
> the resulting changes will be since you cannot just look at one tech and
> figure out who can use it.

This is IMHO not a real reason.

> > > Also you lose the possibility of merging two disjointed trees at a
> > > higher stage or have some shared techs in two mostly disjointed tech
> > > trees.
> >
> > IMHO this is overkill. I could "no modpack author ever will want this"
> > but this would be to much. Lets say "all current modpack authors will
> > be satisfied with my proposal".
> 
> Well, I'm not, for one.
> 
> Not-quite-disjointed tech trees offer interesting possibilities. But the
> most important thing is that your model does not allow several players to
> share one branch of a disjointed tech tree.
> 
> You said:
> > a player can only get a tech by any way (huts, advance, diplomat,
> > diplomacy, ...) if the root of the tech is the same as the root of
> > the player
> 
> One side: Angmar and Mordor
> One side: Moria and Iron Mountains
> 
> Each side has its own tech tree where most techs are put. However, there
> are a very few common techs in addition, that form the root of both trees.

> (This is actually the case with the current modpack made by Bart!)

I didn't found it. Any URL?

> Now, in your scheme, Angmar and Mordor, and Moria and Iron Mountains, once
> they have exhausted the few common techs, cannot share techs and cannot
> find techs in huts.
> 
> No, I am too kind - they cannot even reseach these techs!
> 
> So the moment you depart from a model of two completely distinct tech
> trees, your scheme becomes an additional problem, not a solution.

> (Also you didn't say what would happen if a tech has multiple roots...)

I said this: it can't happend. It is forbidden.

I accept that single tech is not enough.

However I'm against duplication the information. It is already in the
req fields of the techs. One step in this direction would be to change
your patch so that if a tech has no set of allowed nations the
requirement techs are visited. And if we do this we can also move this
to the nation ruleset where is belongs.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  "Windows is the one true OS. MS invented the GUI. MS invented 
   the 32 bit OS. MS is open and standard. MS loves you. We have 
   always been at war with Oceana."



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