[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Patch: bye bye free city center

[<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Mike Jing wrote:

> With this patch, you have the option in game.ruleset to require a real
> worker to be assigned to the city center, i.e. city center is no longer
> worked for free.  This way, a city of size 1 can only use 1 tile (city
> center) instead of 2, and so on.  This is meant as a way to discourage the
> use of ICS strategy and encourage city development.  There is also a related
> option to give city center extra food in order to allow normal city growth
> (it may look a little weird, but not any weirder than city center not
> requring a worker).  This may not be the end of smallpox, because the city
> center still gets free road and irrigation, but it certainly makes it much
> less attractive as a real strategy.

Even though this might be a good idea, I see this potensial problem. If I
remember correctly, even if the first worker is unhappy when you found a
new city (which happens often in civ2 on deity level with a large
civilization), you can always remove the first worker (but keeping the
central square, of course) and this will solve the unhappiness problem. If
there is no 'free square', how do you intend to solve this kind of
unhappiness? You can't starve a city that you just built!

That said, I think we (can I use 'we' in my second freeciv note?) need to
solve the smallpox syndrome. It just feels a little stupid to develop a
complex game aspect (citydevelopment, buildings) if the 'best' strategy is
to ignore it! Actually, a good strategy game should not prefer any one
strategy. There should be at least a good handful of different strategies
(and different not just on the detail level) that are approx. equally
good, so that a player can choose one that fits his/her personality. This
would also help to keep up the interest in playing the game, perfecting
ones playing skills and trying to 'prove' that your strategy is 'the
best'. Also, the 'best' strategy should depend on a number of factors,
like if the world is mostly land or sea, the average terrain, unhappiness,
the density of resources, riversquares, mountains etc. This way one would
would not be able to choose a 'best' strategy at the beginning, but would
have to reevaluate as the game proceeded. Of course, this might be how you
already play, it's just that for me hearing so much about this smallpox
strategy, it feels like it's all lined up: just let those settlers come,
no need to stop thinking about placement and development of cities! (Sorry
about the sarcasm.)

All the best,
Johannes