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

["Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12581 >

Christian Knoke wrote:

>>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.

Yes but it's the hardest one.

> More important are huts, conquering,
> and stealing, IMHO.

Those are trivial (huts is already safe AFAICT).

> 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.

Maybe.  I kindof feel that if strict tech reqs are enforced they should
be enforced everywhere.  On the other hand if we enforce them for
conquest and stealing probably nobody will even notice the change; we
don't need to make it a setting (the only reason to have it a setting is
civ2 compatibility).

Note that if you give a couple out-of-tree techs to a player in
diplomacy, they could conquer/steal/find more out-of-tree techs that
have those as requirements.

>>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.

Good idea.

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

It won't.  Of course we don't have buildings as requirements for techs yet.

-jason