URL:
  <http://gna.org/bugs/?19176>

                 Summary: Tech loss vs root_req
                 Project: Freeciv
            Submitted by: jtn
            Submitted on: Mon Dec 12 02:14:16 2011
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
                  Status: None
             Assigned to: None
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
                 Release: 
         Discussion Lock: Any
        Operating System: None
         Planned Release: 

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

A long time ago (bug #16855 comment 13
<http://gna.org/bugs/?16855#comment13>), Matthias noted that a feature of the
multiplayer ruleset is problematic if tech upkeep is enabled.

There's a self-root_req'd tech called "Theory of Evolution" which is granted
by Lua script when "Darwin's Voyage" is first built -- this is intended to
stop repeatedly gaining the free advances the script also gives you at that
point.

Notwithstanding that that's broken currently (bug #18394), and regardless of
whether that's a good way to achieve that end, this raises a general question
-- if self-root_req'd techs, which must be granted by special means (init_tech
or Lua), are lost through lack of tech_upkeep, there may be no way to get them
back, and there's no way to defend against this -- the lost tech is chosen
randomly.

Perhaps self-root_req'd techs should just be immune to being lost in this
way?

(I suspect that techs with non-self root_reqs cause trouble too; I don't see
anything stopping you losing a tech that's a root_req for another tech, and
that will probably upset lots of code.)




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://gna.org/bugs/?19176>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to