Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS solution #683
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS solution #683

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS solution #683
From: Paul Zastoupil <paulz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:03:39 -0800

On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:58:31PM +0100, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:56:34PM -0800, Paul Zastoupil wrote:
> > Ok so I have a proposal to eliminate ICS as well (who doesn't?).
> 
> I have several :)
> 
> > I think cities of size 1 should produce no science, and cities of size
> > 2 should have their science halved.  The reason for this is 2 fold.
> > First we want to limit ICS.  Second, historically science has always
> > been about people having time to focus on things other than surviving
> > and also communication.
> 
> > The research speed may have to be tweeked to keep the game flowing,
> > but this would help reduce the attractiveness of ICS.
> > 
> > Reinier Post pointed out there is a false floor on trade so that cities
> > can never have < 1 trade.  This should also be removed.
> 
> Yes, this may have much the same effect, at least under despotism
> where the effect of corruption is very strong.
> 
> The two lines:
> 
>   http://www.freeciv.org/lxr/source/server/citytools.c?v=cvs#L562
> 
> Is it a good idea to introduce a setting to control them, or should
> they just be removed?

Well here is another "huge" paulz patch.

I propose just removing it.  It will get lots of play testing that way.


-- 
Paul Zastoupil

Attachment: tradepatch.diff
Description: Text document


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