Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] (no subject)

[Freeciv-Dev] (no subject)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (no subject)
From: Michael Kiermaier <stud8707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 14:26:19 +0100 (MET)
Reply-to: Michael Kiermaier <stud8707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

mike jing wrote:


>>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

>That'll probably happen sooner or later, when we move beyond Civ2 
>Compatability and begin incorporating new features from SMAC, CTP, etc.


>>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.

do not forbid expansion, but make it gradually harder.

>>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.

the distant-dependent unhappiness is not thought to stop ics (i think
this is what you meant.). it is my suggestion for a less restrictive
unhappiness rule. it does not make expansion practically impossible at
a certain point, but gradually harder. maybe you think different about
this point, but in my opinion this way is more natural and intuitive -
and propably easier accepted.

for stopping ics i suggest a constant granary size and that a settler
unit takes away 2 workers from a city. i guess this should be enough.


>>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 be
>>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.

jussi asp did not answer up to now, so the changes to the settler unit
are not implemented yet. i think that should be an easy exercise for
someone who knows the code (i do not).

it would be nice if someone feeled encouraged to do this.


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