[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#6966) root_req for other rulesets as well

["Morgan Jones" <morgan.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6966 >

On  5/12/2003, you wrote:

> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6966 >
> 
> Morgan Jones wrote:
>> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6966 >
>> 
>>> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6966 >
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Jason Short wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=6966 >
>> 
>> Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
>> 
>> Morgan doesn't want to have separate trees. Like in civ3, if you
>> play Japanese, you get Samurai unit instead of Knight, but this
>> unit is available at the same point in tech tree (Chivalry).
>> 
>> In civ3, the techs are identical for all nations but the units
>> are not.
>> Doing this with just changes to the tech tree (and root_req)
>> would be very tricky, since most applicable technologies are
>> requirements for other technologies (and not dead-end
>> off-shoots).
>>> 
>>> Not too tricky. You just add a dead-end tech "Samurai Code" with
>>> two reqs: Chivalry (commonly available) and JapaneseRootTech. Thus
>>> Samurai Code would only be available to Japanese. The downsides
>>> are: 1. Japanese can build both Knights and Samurai. 2. To build
>>> Samurai they have to research an extra tech.
> 
> This is no good as a means for civ3 emulation.
> 
>> The other problem of this method is that the JapaneseRootTech is
>> available to any other nation to research, and therefore anyone is
>> able to get Samurai units anyway.
> 
> Huh?  The point of root techs is that others can't research them.
> 
> jason
> 
Sorry, you're right.  I'd gotten myself confused.

     -Morgan