[freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River: Next Step)

["Michael Kiermaier" <michael.kiermaier@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Sigra" <freeciv@xxxxxxx>
To: <freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 6:52 PM
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River:
Next Step)


>Michael Kiermaier wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Erik Sigra" <freeciv@xxxxxxx>
>> To: <freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 10:04 AM
>> Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail
River:
>> Next Step)
>>
>> > > if i understand correctly, a 'family klan' cannot build a city at the
>> > > beginning of the game, right?
>> >
>> > It would require 'Stationary Living'. If the user selects to start in
>> > the stationary age, he would get all the neccessary techs.
>>
>> how is city building done? i can imaging the following possibilities:
>>
>> *after the discovery of 'Stationary Living' every klan can build a city.
>> this is not very good in my opinion, because there will be lot of new
cities
>> at once. but in my opinion the number of cities should be very low first
and
>> then grow not faster than in civ2. furthermore, this are very cheap
cities
>> compared with cities built by settlers, so everyone would grow as many
klans
>> as possible and then switch them to cities.
>>
>> *since a family klan represents about 50 people and a city at least
10.000
>> many klans should be needed to build a city.
>> my suggestion is:
>> build a city like a city enhancement within one family klan. this klan
>> cannot move any more. the production units used are the hitpoints of the
>> klan. other klans can contribute their complete hitpoints to this project
>> (like caravans contribute their production value to wonders). the costs
for
>> a city should be so high that a experienced player is able to build at
most
>> 3 cities when he discovers 'Stationary Living'.
>> It may be advantageous to keep some klans which "breed" klans for new
>> cities. but since they need a lot of place this will be harder and harder
>> while city expansion goes on. i think is is quite realistic that family
>> klans and cities live side by side for a certain period of time.
>
>As the help text for family klans says, they can build villages after
>the discovery of stationary living. It seems stragne to just skip the
>whole rural time and go directly from nomadic age to city age. I have
>not yet worked out how the transition is to be done. Maybe there should
>be an intermediate stage called village, that can only use 9 squares.

i think my arguments are valid for villages, too. at least 5 klans should be
needed to build a village. players do not simply turn all klans to villages,
but have to choose where to build a village. it would be nice to see how the
first villages come up automatically at the best squares.
on the long run building a new village from an existing village should be
cheaper than building from a splitting family klan, because players will
keep some breeding klans otherwise.

>Family klans will always split in two family klans when they grow. When
>your last family klan has become stationary, you will have no more of
>them. You could keep some in a reservation as tourist attractions if you
>want :-)

the reservation klans will split and starve and split and starve... if you
dont move them :)

>People who are used to the virtues of stationary living will
>never go back to a nomadic life.


>That is what I think too. I liked the system used in Alpha Centauri
>better than the civ system. There is a "Colony Pod" and a "Terraformer".
>And the units are modularized. I really hope Freeciv will remerge with
>the FreecivAC project soon.
>
>In AC, the units had the following modules:
>
>Reactor, Chassis, Weapon, Armour and 2 special abilities.
>
>Reactor is perhaps not useful for civ style rulesets.
>
>For example:
>* A caravan could have chassis="Camel" and weapon="Trade Module".
>* A warrior could have chassis="Infantry" and weapon="Sword".
>* An Engineer could have chassis="Infantry" and weapon"Terraforming
>Module".
>* A Horsemen could have chassis="Horse" and weapon="Sword".
>* A Horse Archer could have chassis="Horse" and weapon="Bow"
>* A Paratrooper could have chassis="Infantry", weapon="Machinegun",
>armour="Bulletproof" and special ability1="Paradropping"
>
>New technologies would not allow new units but instead new chassis and
>weapons. The user would then design the units in the unit workshop. Some
>standard units would be autodesigned, just like in AC.
>
i would prefer this way, too.

> i think 5 sqares are better than 9 (3x3), since then the klans could be
> positioned in a way that every sqare belongs to exactly 1 klan.

>I can position the klans so that every square belongs to exactly 1 klan
>with 9 square system:
>
>@@@XXXEEESSS
>@@@XXXEEESSS
>@@@XXXEEESSS
>OOO»»»...BBB
>OOO»»»...BBB
>OOO»»»...BBB
>TTT;;;ÅÅÅLLL
>TTT;;;ÅÅÅLLL
>TTT;;;ÅÅÅLLL
>
>as well as with the 5 square system: (try it on squared paper if you
>don't believe me)
>
>       X
>     @XXX
>   »@@@XE
> T»»»@;EEE
>TTT»B;;;ES
> TOBBB;ÅSSS
> OOOB.ÅÅÅS
>  OL...Å
>  LLL.
>   L
>
arrrrgh...
yes, of course.
i simply didnt try it before.

>so it could be 5 and 9 equally well. I think I will make it 5 or 9
>instead of 21.

i would still use 5 because the improvment by a village would be bigger and
more visible.

>> furthermore, why not make differences between different kinds of terrain?
>> for instance, animal specials (phesant, buffalo, game, ...) could give an
>> additional food point after the discovery of hunting.
>> ocean (as you said) and river squares give 1 additional after the
discovery
>> of boot building
>> ...
>> glacier, mountain, maybe also swamp, tundra, hill and jungle squares give
no
>> food.
>
>Yes, I was planning to make differences between different kinds of
>terrain.

with different types of terrain it is also not so important to avoid "every
sqare belongs to exactly 1 klan."


~michael