Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-data: August 2000:
[freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River: N

[freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River: N

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River: Next Step)
From: "Michael Kiermaier" <michael.kiermaier@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:39:09 +0200
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Sigra" <freeciv@xxxxxxx>
To: <freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: [freeciv-data] Re: family klan & freeciv techtree (was: Sail River:
Next Step)

> > >> *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 ;-)

you are right.

> > >> many klans should be needed to build a city.
> > >> my suggestion is:
> > >> build a city like a city enhancement within one family klan. this
> > >> cannot move any more. the production units used are the hitpoints of
> > >> klan. other klans can contribute their complete hitpoints to this
> > >> (like caravans contribute their production value to wonders). the
> > for
> > >> a city should be so high that a experienced player is able to build
> > 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
> > >> while city expansion goes on. i think is is quite realistic that
> > >> 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
> > but have to choose where to build a village. it would be nice to see how
> > first villages come up automatically at the best squares.
> > on the long run building a new village from an existing village should
> > 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.

i thougt it would be better for gameplay to need several klans for one
village, because
*first villages come up at the best places and not everywhere, quite
*otherwise with the discovery of 'stationary living' (almost) all klans
would be immediately turned into the same number villages, not realisic.
*population density in a village is much higher compared to klans, and so a
village should use considerable less squares than its klans before.
*otherwise expansion would be done mainly in the nomadic era. in my opinion
nomads should result in a widespread population, but not in a dense
placement of villages.

> 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.

if there are more than 1000 people inside city radius: would all the
villages disappear exept one which turns into a city? can players choose
which one to keep?
maybe in this case it would be very academic where to place villiages (and
klans before) to get a good city structure later.
is it up to the player to decide to keep the villages until they will be
bigger and more of them will survive?

> 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.

if it works this way i will like it very much. it is exactly what i thought
of by myself. but my fear is that it would be advantageous to have a
breeding area up to the end of expansion (or even after that: to increase

> > >Family klans will always split in two family klans when they grow.
one sentence on splitting:
i suppose that a klan with full hp splits into two klans with half hp,

> 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

maybe a silly question: where can i find the image?


i really like all your ideas of a new gaming chapter before the present
freeciv game.

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]