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

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

[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: Erik Sigra <freeciv@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:13:20 +0200
Reply-to: freeciv-data@xxxxxxxxxxx

> 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
> realistic.
> *otherwise with the discovery of 'stationary living' (almost) all klans
> would be immediately turned into the same number villages, not realisic.

I don't know how realistic this would be. It would be best to ask some
good professor for advice.

> *population density in a village is much higher compared to klans, and so a
> village should use considerable less squares than its klans before.

Yes, somehow that aspect should come in.

> *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.

I think (almost) all of Europe was inhabited by nomads before
agriculture came into the picture. So It would be quite natural to fill
all of your land with nomads in the nomadic age (unless you play on a
really huge map). It would of course be possible to expand to new lands
later too (compare with european colonization of America).
> > 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?

I guess too many players care too much about getting a perfetc city
structure. I have done that myself. I think most good players on
civserver don't care that much. They just place the cities where they
> > 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
> cities).

I'm not afraid of that. What wold 50 additional people mean to a city
with 5.000 (or even 5.000.000!) citizens later in the game?
> > > >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,
> right?

> > 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?

> ~michael

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

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