[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Making big cities more important

[Steven Burnap <sburnap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:48 AM 2/29/00 -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 01:39:04PM +0100, Bastian Hecht was heard to say:
> > How about making big cities much more important. I think it´s more fun
> > to try build up really big cities than having loads of small villages
> > you need right now to compete with other players in production and
> > economics.
>
>   I think something desperately needs to be done about this..Freeciv 
> seems (to
> me) to be even less balanced this way than the original Civs, maybe because of
> the lack of diplomacy and a Senate.  The ideal case would be for either 
> strategy
> (ie: build tons of poorly-planned cities (current best strategy), or a smaller
> number of hugely productive cities) to be equally valid, depending on the
> disposition of the player.
I don't think it really is all that different from the original Civ and Civ 
2.  The ideal
strategy in those games was to create settlers like a madman, given little
regard to city location and/or development.  In order to beat the game at the
top level, you pretty much had to do it this way.  If you tried to produce 
just a
few well-developed cities, the AI will destroy you.  The only real 
difference I've
noticed in freeciv is that the AIs use this strategy.  In the original 
Civs, they never
expanded at the same rate.

Steve Burnap