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

[Erik Sigra <freeciv@xxxxxxx>]

> >> *since a family klan represents about 50 people and a city at least
> 10.000

A city does not mean at least 10.000 people. For example the first
Swedish city Birka had at most 1.500 citizens (calculated by counting
the likely number of generations who lived there and the number of
graves). That means it probably had well under 1.000 citizens at some
time and still functioned as a city.I'm sure I can find many ohter
examples of famous early cities who had well under 10.000 citizens.

I guess the number 10.000 is just another useless payciv legacy ;-)

> >> 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.

I can very well imagine a village with less than 250 people. Especially
an early settlement.

Maybe some rule can be made so that a village with at least 250 people
(size 5), and at least 1000 people (sum of all villages, including
itself) within its city radius (not village radius!), would
automatically become a city with 1.000 citizens (size 1). The villages
would then go out of the simulation. The people would be considered to
work on the fields and live in the city.

That people keep some breeding klans for a while is quite natural.
Nomadic and stationary people can live side by side for a while. But it
would become ineffective. The stationary peope would grow faster than
the nomadic.
 
> >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 :)
 
Could happen, but if they have lack of room, they won't grow that much.

> >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.

But remember that nomadic people are quite mobile. The improvement by a
village should better be how effective they can use each square and not
how many squares they can use.
 
> >> 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."

Sure. Also coastlines would disturb the perfect order that someone might
want to arragne.
 
I included a picture showing the traditional building of the nomadic
Samic people in northern Sweden. I mean the two light grey cones with
smoke comming up from the top. Such a building would perhaps be the best
possible graphic for a family klan?

> ~michael

~erik
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: image/jpeg
-- File: fatmomakke.jpg