Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#5122) Building requirement for techs
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#5122) Building requirement for techs

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: remi.bonnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#5122) Building requirement for techs
From: "Morgan Jones" <morgan.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:00:35 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just throwing my 2c in as a player addicted to changing the
rulesets...

I too think that tech_req and impr_req are adequate as they are; I'm
sure the AI issues will be resolved eventually.

I was thinking though that gov_req might make sense, particularly in
the case of Fanatics and Fundamentalism.

I'd love it if there was some sort of nation_req for units.  I know
that this sort of thing is possible via techs, but you end up with a
very cluttered tech tree which the AI doesn't seem to handle too well.

     -Morgan

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
>>> Forgetting the above concerns, I would prefer to see buildings as
>>> prerequisites for units rather then techs.
>> 
>> Already implemented and put into cvs, with full AI support, and
>> written by yours truly. See impr_req in units.ruleset.
>> 
>> If you meant a ruleset using this, I have that too. It pretty much
>> kills smallpox. Only problem is that the AI stumbled and fell over
>> strategically last time I tried it, and I didn't have time to find
>> the reason.
> 
> Oh.  I see.
> 
> I think such flexibility ought to be enough for a good ruleset. And
> I would strongly encourage people to look at making AI recognize and
> deal with this existing flexibility, rather than pile up new
> features.
> 
> G.






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