Re: Feature Request: Advance Prohibits Advance

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Elijah Meeks wrote:

> 1) It's more complicated.  Not having seen the code, I
> don't know how much, but a simple shut-off switch
> would, I think be straightforward.  

You are possibly right in this regard. I'll think some more about it.

>It would also
> allow the game designer to simulate much of what
> you're talking about, he'd just have to create a few
> more techs, so that you're getting the same tech, only
> cheaper,

I see. So are you going to race Lincoln to 10000 advances to win an 
additional donut? :-)

> 2) The AI doesn't choose research very well.  Really,
> this is for the AI, because a player will probably
> focus, anyway, while the AI will choose its research
> haphazardly and I wouldn't be surprised to see it
> short-circuiting by researching an almost-infinite-rp
> tech.

Ah ha. Trying to make the AI look like it has a brain? That is also the 
mark of a seasoned Xconq developer.

> Of course, if I'm wrong about these points, which is a
> decent possibility given my lack of familiarity with
> the research or AI code, then by all means I'd prefer
> a more featured implementation.

No. I think you made valid points. You are the one actually using 
advances. Like I said, I have barely touched the stuff. I'll think some 
more about it.

But, right now, I am about to add support for prefix args to the SDL 
interface.

Eric