Every technology can have only one root_req, unfortunately.Corbeau wrote:Oh? Does that mean that, if I set the whole tree so that ALL reqs are also root_reqs, then when a tech is lost due to negative bulbs it will no longer be random? Only highest techs can be lost? That would be excellent!Caedo wrote:You can't lose a tech that's a root_req for a tech you currently have, so if you have negative bulbs, you'd lose Mobile Warfare first, then Automobile, then Combustion etc.Corbeau wrote:Interesting. However, what happens if you get all those techs from your allies, start building stuff, and then one of the techs in the middle is lost due to negative bulbs? Does the whole structure collapse?
Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
- Alien Valkyrie
- Elite
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
~ AVL
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
2.6 will let Corbeau do what they want; there are ruleset settings for whether tech loss can open up holes in the tech tree. (patch #4789)Caedo wrote:Every technology can have only one root_req, unfortunately.Corbeau wrote:Oh? Does that mean that, if I set the whole tree so that ALL reqs are also root_reqs, then when a tech is lost due to negative bulbs it will no longer be random? Only highest techs can be lost? That would be excellent!
(Also whether you can gain such techs, without having to use root_reqs: patch #4415.)
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
Hm, maybe fulfilling the goal - loss of only top techs - is still doable. An interesting mathematical challengeCaedo wrote:Every technology can have only one root_req, unfortunately.Corbeau wrote:Oh? Does that mean that, if I set the whole tree so that ALL reqs are also root_reqs, then when a tech is lost due to negative bulbs it will no longer be random? Only highest techs can be lost? That would be excellent!
--
* Freeciv LongTurn, a community of one-turn-per-day players and developers
* LongTurn Blog - information nexus with stuff and stuff and stuff
* Longturn Discord server; real-time chatting, discussing, quarrelling, trolling, gaslighting...
* Freeciv LongTurn, a community of one-turn-per-day players and developers
* LongTurn Blog - information nexus with stuff and stuff and stuff
* Longturn Discord server; real-time chatting, discussing, quarrelling, trolling, gaslighting...
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
I think that's what experimental ruleset tries to do.Corbeau wrote:Hm, maybe fulfilling the goal - loss of only top techs - is still doable.Caedo wrote:Every technology can have only one root_req, unfortunately.Corbeau wrote:Oh? Does that mean that, if I set the whole tree so that ALL reqs are also root_reqs, then when a tech is lost due to negative bulbs it will no longer be random? Only highest techs can be lost? That would be excellent!
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
http://gna.org/patch/?5944Corbeau wrote:Also, another motive for this is preventing a backward stone-age nation receiving one tech and then being able to build armour. Yes, they could receive all three, but with penalties and random tech loss when bulbs go into negative, stuff would get more realistic.
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
Generalized req is something I was asking about, about a year ago now. And I somehow got the impression that they were comming in 2.6 now I hear that that is not happening. Which is very sad.
In addition to that, I belive reqs "vectoring" could use an extension overal. Currently it is only possible to specify requirements like so: "[some stuff AND'ed] NOT [some stuff OR'ed]", and you can't have some effect/building allowed by one or the other thing. Suppose you could have unit that is available if you have building in a city, OR some wonder in any of your cities (OR maybe some tech).
Alternatively, most awesome option would be to have something like can_build(city, thing) lua function, that could process all kinds of stuff (though doign some things in lua is crazy complicated currently, for example checking if/what wonders player has) and would allow tons of flexibility. Though obviously this makes AI stuff cracy complicated, possibly some "AI hinting" lua functions could help, still everything would be very complext with regards to AI. On the other hand, maybe it would be possible to simply allow mark ruleset as multiplayer only/no AI and don't sweat so much about it? I think such marking is basically possible, set AI fill 0 in ruleset and dissalow changing of that option, this should make it alsmos AI'less ruleset though server admin could probably toggle that using server console at run time, still...
In addition to that, I belive reqs "vectoring" could use an extension overal. Currently it is only possible to specify requirements like so: "[some stuff AND'ed] NOT [some stuff OR'ed]", and you can't have some effect/building allowed by one or the other thing. Suppose you could have unit that is available if you have building in a city, OR some wonder in any of your cities (OR maybe some tech).
Alternatively, most awesome option would be to have something like can_build(city, thing) lua function, that could process all kinds of stuff (though doign some things in lua is crazy complicated currently, for example checking if/what wonders player has) and would allow tons of flexibility. Though obviously this makes AI stuff cracy complicated, possibly some "AI hinting" lua functions could help, still everything would be very complext with regards to AI. On the other hand, maybe it would be possible to simply allow mark ruleset as multiplayer only/no AI and don't sweat so much about it? I think such marking is basically possible, set AI fill 0 in ruleset and dissalow changing of that option, this should make it alsmos AI'less ruleset though server admin could probably toggle that using server console at run time, still...
- Alien Valkyrie
- Elite
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:21 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Re: Multiple same-class prerequisits for a unit?
We had a discussion about this not too long ago in this thread I made, coming to the conclusion that it's not only a problem for the AI, but also for all kinds of automated documentation.morphles wrote:In addition to that, I belive reqs "vectoring" could use an extension overal. Currently it is only possible to specify requirements like so: "[some stuff AND'ed] NOT [some stuff OR'ed]", and you can't have some effect/building allowed by one or the other thing. Suppose you could have unit that is available if you have building in a city, OR some wonder in any of your cities (OR maybe some tech).
Alternatively, most awesome option would be to have something like can_build(city, thing) lua function, that could process all kinds of stuff (though doign some things in lua is crazy complicated currently, for example checking if/what wonders player has) and would allow tons of flexibility. Though obviously this makes AI stuff cracy complicated, possibly some "AI hinting" lua functions could help, still everything would be very complext with regards to AI. On the other hand, maybe it would be possible to simply allow mark ruleset as multiplayer only/no AI and don't sweat so much about it? I think such marking is basically possible, set AI fill 0 in ruleset and dissalow changing of that option, this should make it alsmos AI'less ruleset though server admin could probably toggle that using server console at run time, still...
~ AVL