Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: cheating

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: cheating

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: cheating
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:46:49 -0500
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

I am fully aware of the 'cityfactor' and 'unhappysize' option in Freeciv, and they do server to address the problem somewhat. Indeed, unhappysize=2 would be used in the Deity level. However, the way 'cityfactor' is implemented in Civ2 is a bit more complicated and thus much more restrictive. It's not a single factor across the board, but with more gradation, and the unhappiness constantly rises after you obtain a certain number of cities.

> This means it's very hard to expand recklessly because after you >have a certain number of cities, if you >go out and build another, the very first citizen will be unhappy, >and it could also make citizens in other cities unhappy too.

But won't just decreasing cityfactor be a more effective way in order
to get this effect?  Compared to an increased cityfactor, this rule
still punishes city growth!

It may seems so initially, but it forces you to build improvements even for the smallest of cities, and this in turn makes it more worthwhile to grow the city to a bigger size. Once the city reaches a certain size, it pays to build more improvements, and eventually the limit on size actually disappears! (Well, not really, you still need food. Can you say Farmland?) The game I am playing right now, all my 7 major cities are of size 20-23, with practically every improvement in the book. Again, happiness is key. In order to keep people happy, you need not only temples/catherdrals/coloserums, you also need marketplaces/banks/stock exchanges to provide luxury. Every aspect of the game is involved.

It doesn't punish city growth at all. It just forces you to grow it in a much different (and correct) way.

> But if you have too many cities, it will be impossible to grow > by making your cities celebrate because of the addtional unhappy > citizens created by the size of your empire.

OK - this is something that Freeciv's unhappysize and cityfactor >cannot prevent; in Freeciv, it is only limited with unhappysize, >which doesn't vary with the number of cities.

The main problem I see here is a practical one: few players seem to
explore the effects of alternate settings.  I don't think the
cityfactor and unhappysize variables have really been proved >inadequate in practice.

You are correct, of cause, because I haven't tried it out in Freeciv myself. But I truly believe it is the right way to go. I practice, nobody ever build marketplaces in Freeciv, and that's simply wrong. But the problem goes beyond just improvements. By slowing down the initial expansion, Monarchy becomes much more important -- no more straight to Republic because you can't build temples fast enough without the benifit of martial law. By decreasing unhappysize and city factor, everything in the game suddenly fit together -- everything has a purpose, and you do have to use them all in order to win.


Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download :

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