[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Non-smallpox ruleset (Minimum distance between cities
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Daniel Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is not to argue but to figure out if we understand each other:
:) Too powerful compared to what? Compared to small cities?
You did agree that small cities should be a lot less useful...
I'm confused as to what You are saying...
The effect of more powerful improvements are really (except from making
improvements necessary and thus make larger cities more attractive) a
faster game - I don't think that's a bad thing really... As it is You
almost never get to modern age technologies.
Compared to slightly smaller cities (not tiny ones). Once you grow your
cities to around size 20 and above, they become very powerful, because the
effects of city improvements are magnified many times by the city size. By
that time, the game becomes much faster. If you can get to this stage
first, you can crush a less developed enemy very easily. This is why I say
large cities are already very powerful. Giving city improvements more power
will tilt the balance too much the other way, IMHO.
The problem we have is that it takes a long time and a lot of work to grow
cities to such a big size. You have to improve the land and build all kinds
of city imporvements, and they do not really start to pay off until you get
to a reasonable size, say above 12. During all this time, you are very
vulnerable to attack. In contrast, smallpox is much easier. You can keep
expanding and you can usually destroy your enemy before he can grow his
cities bigger. On the other hand, if you give more power to city
improvements, a player in this development stage will become more vulnerable
to someone who has just grown his cities to super large sizes. A game that
is too supercity friendly will be just as bad as one that overwelmingly
favors smallpox.
I think you are trying to give more power to mid-sized cities, say size
8-12, that's all well and good. But if you increase the power of city
improvements, really big cities (size 20-30) will become incredibly
powerful. I think they are already powerful enough, that's all.
Actually, a big part of why I like this solution is that I (as someone else
mentioned) think that improvements are way to weak as it is... I would like
to see improvements as something essential - not as something You build
when You have nothing else to build... I probably dislike this just as much
as smallpox...
Improvements are not waek, They seem weak only because your cities are too
small. Due to smallpox, it becomes a catch-22 situation: city improvements
are not worth it because the cities are too small, while cities can't grow
bigger without city improvements. Once you get past the development stage
and get to size 12 and above, the power of city improvements becomes
obvious. In my size 25-30 cities, they are not weak at all.
Really - the natural solution to smallpox is to simply play with a smaller
map... :)
That's simply not true. To the contrary, you want to try to squeeze as many
cities as possible in the space allowed. If you try a build a few big
cities, you will be dead even faster than on a bigger map.
I think the objection to some suggested solutions that they "really just
make the map smaller" is of no importance... I see nothing wrong with
"really just making the map smaller" in some way...
Reinier said that in reference to the suggestion of increasing te minimum
distance between cites. It may help a bit, but it doesn't change the basic
tactic, i.e. expand as fast as you can with small cities; build military
units instead of city improvements and attck your opponents early. In other
words, the underlying principle behind smallpox still applies. The main
effect would be to force the small cities to be farther apart, thus making
the map effectively "smaller".
Mike
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
|
|
