[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Non-smallpox ruleset (Minimum distance between cities to 3

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 08:39:20PM +0200, Tuomas Airaksinen wrote:
> > I just noticed that there is possibility to set minimum distance between 
> > cities in game.ruleset (min_dist_bw_cities). So, changing it to 3 or 4 
> > will make smallpox impossible.
> Not really - the strategy doesn't change, only the map becomes
> 'smaller'.
Exactly.  That's because it addresses the symptom rather than the cause.

[snip]
> > Mike Jing's way to add unhappines (read his document, don't remember
> > his geocities url any more (copy is also readable on my site,
> > http://tuma.cjb.net/other/smallpox.html), is a good alternative, but it 
> > will change gameplay quite much.
> The document can be found at
>
>   http://www.freeciv.org/tutorials/nopox.html
>
> We're waiting for the webmaster's comments/corrections to make it 
> 'official'.
> The main problem with the approach, it turns out, is boredom.  Games take 
> forever.  Developments is extremely slow when you only have 12 cities and 
> any conquest or settlement beyond that is penalized.
It has to be pointed out that the game will speed up significantly once the 
cities are grown to size, and by then the penalty on conquest will cease to 
be a problem.  Of course, it's much faster to cover the map with small 
cities than to grow them big, but the penalty is absolutly necessary to 
limit the effectiveness of smallpox.
> It is unclear whether there is any way around this problem.  The smallpox 
> strategy is good in that it gets you built up and ready for
> decisive action in under an hour, without the need to do the equivalent of 
> a maths exam in calculating all the details of micromanagement. I'd like to 
> have more strategic options but the game shouldn't be turned into an 
> exercise in accounting.
[snip]

To be fair, there is no complicated calculation involved here -- it doesn't 
take a math genius to figure out that building more than 11-12 cities is 
probably a bad idea.  The hardest part is to let go of the urge to expand 
beyond your means and concentrate on city development instead.  A period of 
peaceful development is essential to the eventual success of big cities, and 
it comes about very natually under these rules.  You want big cities?  You 
get big cities, plus a load of extra goodies, such as more strategic 
options, modern warfare, space race and much much more.  For all this, a 
little more micromanagement is a very small price to pay.  Not to mention 
that if you do it right, it is not that bad at all.
Mike


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com