[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kiermaier <stud8707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> i know, you tried to remove the free city center. what problems did arise?
Generally, the free city center provides the surplus food the city needed in 
order to grow, so there has to be a way to compensate for that.  In 
addition, there is the question whether the first worker should be able to 
be freed from the land.  I tried a couple of things and simply found it to 
be unsatisfactory.  See the following posts for more info:
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200101/msg00240.html
http://arch.freeciv.org/freeciv-dev-200101/msg00261.html

> jussi asp's idea that a settler costs two workers adresses exactly the same 
> problem (which is the main reason for ics in my opinion.), but it sounds 
> less restrictive to me.
It's indeed a very interesting idea.  We just have to find out how it works 
in practice.
> so i think we should give it a try, since the "free city center" also got 
> its chance. and it should not be too hard to implement. my further thought 
> was that if some changes are done to the settler unit, we could also do the 
> change to split it up into two units. this was discussed some time ago, and 
> it seemed to me that noone disliked this idea.
That'll probably happen sooner or later, when we move beyond Civ2 
Compatability and begin incorporating new features from SMAC, CTP, etc.
[snip]
> and after this, ics is broken in a quite natural way and everyone can do 
> the changes he wants to have. for example, there is no reason why not to 
> decrease happines in the way you suggested.
Except that nobody likes to deal with the problem of unhappiness.

> i do not understand which bigger problem you mean. expansion itself ?? but 
> forbidding expansion is equally bad as forbidding to develop cities, which 
> is practically done by ics.
You have a point.  But I do think some kind of restraint on expansion is 
good for game balance.
[snip]
> i think that this corruption-like unhappiness should only depend from the 
> distance to the capital and the government type. if we restrict ics in the 
> way described above i see no reason why to make it dependent from the 
> number of cities.
First of all, I am not sure if that'll be enough to stop ICS.  Second, see 
my comments above.
> i still feel that your unhappiness-rules in its current form are unlogical 
> and too restrictive (i know i am repeating myself.) and it seems to me that 
> i am not the only one who thinks so...
I am not in the least surprised.

[snip]
> the only things to change are the settler unit and the granary size. (see 
> above) this changes are rather streightforward in my opinion and therefore 
> i see only a small propability of an unexpected unbalancing effect. and if 
> it seems to work as we expected, playtesting should ba a lot of fun... of 
> cause it should be adoptable (in the ruleset) if a settler unit costs one
> worker unit or two, so i cannot imagine that someone would not accept this 
> change.
I am not against these changes in principle.  It would be great if they do 
work out.  Time will tell.
Mike


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