[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#5672) Changing production categories when having to much shields

["Christian Knoke" <chrisk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:52:03AM -0700, Thomas Strub wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:41:38PM -0700, Christian Knoke wrote:

> > I don't think that the current behaviour is a bug.
> 
> As jason said earlier only when changing in categories. 
> I think building a 600er wonder with caravans, than switching to a 200er
> and than having 449 shields which can be used for units or improvements
> is a bug.

Why?

Why is the current model 'putting parts of the shields on a bank account' a
bug?

As you say, it is perfectly allowed wo switch from one wonder to another.
Why should the exceeding shields be penalized?

> Or stocking 1000 shields for a "settler" not building it and then
> switching to a wonder (by using the warrior trick) without the penalty
> is a bug.

This is a very rare extremum. Once you've researched trade, there are better
ways to build wonders in a sudden.

> When you get the shields unpenalized with a trick and not without the
> trick it must be a bug.
> 
> a)
> Building settler (1000 stock)
> changing to magellan (500 shields)
> 
> b) 
> Building settler (1000 stock)
> changing to warrior (1000 stock)
> next round warrior build (990 stock)
> building magellan from worklist (990 stock) + 1 warrior
> 
> Why is b) not a bug?

- Ever managed to heap 1000 shields to stock building a settler in a size 1
  city?

- A more realistic example is building a tank, then switching to a rifleman.
  The shield difference then is 80 to 40. Note, that warriors obsolete very 
  early. - Or, building a collosseum, and switching to a harbour. There are
  not so many shields usually that can be taken over to the next item.

- The rule is, you loose shields when you change production category. But
  you don't switch category, you still build an item of the same category.


Can we agree, at least, that we're talking of a rule change, not a bug?

Christian

-- 
Christian Knoke          * * *          http://www.cknoke.de
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.