[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#12581) out-of-tree tech achievement

[Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:54:51PM -0700, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> > IIRC we did a rule change that techs achieved by diplomacy must be
> > next-to-researched techs.
> > 
> > When I conquer a city, it happens to be not the case. I get a tech of much
> > greater value (physics) skipping navigation and astronomy.
> 
> This patch makes part of that change.

Thanks for your effort.

> A strict_reqs ruleset variable is added.  If set then tech reqs are
> supposed to be strict.  It's not rigorous; only diplomacy is controlled.

Hhm, this is the least important case. More important are huts, conquering,
and stealing, IMHO.

When you give a away a tech in a treaty, for which the counterpart doesn't
have the requirements, you can just consider this as intended. In most cases
you know the other's techs.

Also, it's kind of a feature not to have give away all techs that are
required. But you are right as this misses some logic, and leeds to a tech
tree with holes in it. Will this affect some features of Freeciv? At least
it does not right now.

> It's also not particularly workable in the current form.  In a diplomacy
> meeting it only allows techs that are reachable to be traded.  However
> since this doesn't recursively account for other techs in the treaty it
> will make trading techs very tedious.  One alternative is to allow
> trading of any tech but to put any reqs onto the treaty automatically.

Yes, that is better. Also, you can put a small number behind the techs
indicating how many techs are to be given away, for example: "Physics (+2)".
This has been suggested already long ago in the context of diplomacy.

Another thought: How will this cope with buildings as requirements for
techs?

Just my 2 cents.

Christian

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