[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

[Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Michael Kiermaier wrote:
> martin olveyra wrote:
> 
> > Well, as you have noted, my point of view was always and is to see the
> > realistic side of the problem.
> 
> in my mail i did not argue with reality because reality in freeciv is a
> weird thing. consider this simple example:
> 
> a legion can move one square per turn. one square represents 10.000
> square miles of land and one turn lasts 20 years at the beginning of the
> game. so a legion has a speed of 141 (diagonal distance between to
> squares) miles per 20 years :)

Well, I'm not dogmatic. I know some things are imposible to simulate in a game.
The example you give is radical, and this point has no discussion. I agree with
you. 
But the city model is another kind of thing.

> the main goal in my opinion should be to make freeciv a more enjoyable
> (not necessary a more realistic) game. 
Well, that is the problem with me: if more realistic, then more enjoyable ;-)

> therefore many differentstrategies should be possible and all elements of the
> game (including trading routes, buildings, luxury rate and the space race)
> should have their function.
I agree with you.

> science depends on more than only the trade points given by landtiles. 
> it heavily depends on the science- and trade related buildings inside a  
> city. and it makes much more sense to build them in a big city, because
> the profit you gain is much higher there. so i do not see a reason for a  
> bonus on the number of workers.

It is necesary to raise the potential of big cities, in
order to compensate the lack of development that small ones brings. This
creates the balance, because you need big cities in order to expand economical
and industrially, and to increase the technological degree. But you need small
ones because you need to exploit resources.
Yes, may be my original idea of give a trade bonus for each worker and each
tile, is exagerate after all. May be if we give more importance to
caravans, and each established trading route might give more extra trading
points as actually does, and proportional to the size of the two cities
involved.

> it is necessary to take away two workers when a settler is built, because
> otherwise one of the main reasons for ics is still vaild. as an
> alternative you could take away the free city center, but i think that
> would too much restrict the locations for new cities.
> but, together with a constant granary size, settlers can be easier built
> in big cities. this is exactly what you wanted...

I agree that if we conserve the 1 settler/1 worker relation, the settlers are
easy to build. But the point is that it is not convenient to build a lot of
them, because you reduce drastically the potential of your city, and so the
scientific development. Complementing what I said above, each time a city loss
a worker, the tarde bonus which cames from trading routes will be reduced.