[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Forking code.

[Thomas Strub <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:06:42AM -0300, Lobo Gris wrote:
> 
> Per I. Mathisen wrote:

First i have to say that i like the idea from more than one production
resource. But i think that freeciv is nearer to reality than your model.
 
>  >> Also, in freeciv you can build units by buying them with gold. Both
>  >> features can't be part of a game based in materials, because other way
>  >> you can cheat the game, producing units or buildings that normally you
>  >> can't produce because you has not available a specific material to need
>  >> them.
>  >
>  >I don't see why. If you can't produce it, then it should not be an option
>  >neither for next production item nor for buying.
> 
> In the case of materials, you can't complete a unit/building if you don't 
> have enough material to complete it. But you can have it in a partial 
> degree of completion. It is the actual production of the city. For 
> example, if you want to build a legion, you choose it from the list of 
> available units, and each unity of completion (shield_stock) is 
> incremented if and only if each time you have available 2 Shield (easy to 
> be self productor), 1 Wood (easy to be self productor) and 2 Iron (hard 
> to be self productor). This materials can be obtained from the self 
> production of the city, or from trading with other cities. 

When you have communism and all the stuff is property of the state, that
works in the way you describe. But when you have people with own
property its possible to buy some stuff from them. (Or from companies)

> But with actual rules, you can cheat this condition in two ways: 
 
> - build a unit or a wonder that doesn't need iron, and, at certain moment, 
> change the production to legion, so the shield_stock is transferred to the 
> legion, even if we never had availability of iron.

Thats a matter of rule. Think there are easy rules when you change
production. (Or selling improvements /disbanding units)  

When you disband your legion which costs 16 shields, 8 wood, 16 iron you
get at least 14-15 iron, 5-6 wood, when we say that shields are the
working power of the people you can't get them back. (You need new)

When you "sell" a colosseum you get most of your stones back and some of
the rest. Think of recycling materials. You only lose the workforce
which was needed to create the stuff.

> - if you buy the legion. Yes, Ok, may be you are thinking that, in order 
> to buy this unit, you must have available the total materials needed ([2S, 
> 2W, 2I] * build_cost). In that case, the sense of buying it is to 
> accelerate the production, as in the actual game. But also, in this case, 
> you CANNOT make freeciv a special case of a game with materials, because 
> with freeciv you can buy an item preciselly when you has not enough shield 
> production, something that is completelly undesirable with materials.

It's not possible to make freeciv a special case of your implementation
of more materials. But it's possible when you use a more general way.

Buying raw materials:
 - I don't see a problem of buying them. There are enough private
   travelling salesmen who can bring you stuff. Even when you are in an
   embargo situation. When you give them enough money you can get all
   you want.
 - Other possible explanation is that you buy the stuff from your people
   and companies. You only see a part of the political economy.
   
Buying manpower:
 - Think of the Manhatton Projekt or the building of the Pyramids. When
   the state gives enough to his people they work harder or more people
   work for the state.
 - With enough money private firms build nuclear misseles for their
   state instead of doing their usuall stuff. Think of WWII where in
   most countries nearly no consuming goods where produced and the
   states spent _lots_ of money to build military stuff.

I think with spending money it's allways possible to increase the speed
of production.
 
> Also, there is an objection from the point of view of the extended trading 
> system: Gold (money) is not transformed in a unit by magic. Instead, money 
> is an instrument to facilitate the interchange of commodities. So, when you 
> buy something, this something has been produced before by another one. You 
> give gold to someone, you obtain a unit from someone. The extended trading 
> system that I'm thinking points to something like this, including the 
> possibility of interchanging products and materials without the 
> intermediation of money (money would appear with the discovery of currency). 
> I'm designing this trading system with no cost in playability (or with 
> minimal cost). And is easy to see that the freeciv trading system neither 
> is a special case of the extended trading system.

As player i don't like to buy ore in city X, move it to Y to make Iron
out of it. And many steps later i have a cruiser. In an working economy
that works automatically because the people who are involved into that
process get paid for doing that.

Same as above the freeciv trading system is not a special case of your
extended trading system. 

And i wouldn't say that it's a bug that you have "gold" before currency.
I think one big step for a civilisation is the begin of trading stuff
against other stuff. Money is nice because it's easier to compare stuff
with each other, but not that big step. And the "gold" is the trading
stuff from the state.

>  >Sounds like the Civ3 trade model. I do not see why this cannot be
>  >implemented in Freeciv.
>  >
> 
> In fact, this COULD be implemented in freeciv. Although freeciv can't be 
> a special case of a game with multiple materials, the solution is to add 
> new modifiers in the game.rulesets, each associated with a completelly 
> different behavior. I will try that, but it's obvious that this implies 
> a forking code (an internal forking code, but a forking anyway)

I think that i would be possible to make freeciv a special case of a
game with multiple materials. But i don't see where so sophisticated
rules increase the fun of the game for the players. 

Thomas

P.S. It would be fine, when you would use a maximum line length of 72
characters.
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
jb: people are stupid, they don't want to learn.