From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22936 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2004 15:52:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22928 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 15:52:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2004 15:52:00 -0000 Received: from [192.168.181.128] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004090515520001600n6epne>; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 15:52:00 +0000 Message-ID: <413B3619.7090605@phy.cmich.edu> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 16:25:00 -0000 From: Eric McDonald User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elijah Meeks CC: Xconq list Subject: Re: Feature Request: Advance Prohibits Advance References: <20040905014819.70407.qmail@web13121.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20040905014819.70407.qmail@web13121.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01105.txt.bz2 Elijah Meeks wrote: > As it stands, there's no way to simulate different > tech paths. I'd like to have a way to shut off > advances if certain advances are researched, so that > sides can choose different directions to take. For > example, if we have two spacefaring societies, we can > have two techs, one being Ground War Focus and the > other Stellar War Focus. The side that pics Ground > War Focus spends less on developing AT-ATs and > Battlemechs and more for its Cordships and A-Wing > Starfighters while the other side has to pay extra to > develop its hovertanks but manages to design > galaxy-class starships and battlestars at a faster > rate. I'm wondering what the best way to model this is. I think that maybe instead of advances totally shutting out other advances, that maybe we should think about something like 'advance-adds-rp-requirement' and 'advance-multiplies-rp-requirement' advance-vs-advance tables. This would allow for a game designer to make researching certain advances arbitrarily more difficult (or easier). This way a "Ground War Focus" civilization could _eventually_ research the "Space War Focus" line and thereby get good at both, and vice versa. The ability to make researching advances easier is also interesting, because, for example, in a Civ-like game, after researching "Formal Logic" and "Empirical Science", a civilization might be able to make a whole slew of scientific and technological advances much more rapidly than it would otherwise. Taken to extremes, the proposed tables could shut off advances by boosting the RP requirement to some very large number (relative infinity?), or make gaining an advance trivial by multiplying its RP requirement by 0%. I'll think about it some more. I haven't dealt much with the advances aspect of Xconq before. If it's an easy feature to add (and test), I might go ahead and add it in the near future. Eric