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

["Christian Knoke" <chrisk@xxxxxxxxx>]

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

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:59:42AM -0700, Jason Short wrote:
> 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).

good.

> > 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.

Yes, you're right.


> 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).

Yes.

> 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.

Agreed. No techs out-of-order.

> >>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.

So the idea was, in the treaty, give all techs that are required with the
one traded, forced. Tech trading will not be complicated this way.

> > 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.

Christian

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