Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mathias Broxvall <matbr@xxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions
From: Paul Zastoupil <paulz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 10:02:49 -0800

On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 03:49:42PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 04:21:48PM +0100, Mathias Broxvall wrote:
> > Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> > > Under the formula I'm using, A would only have 20 size-1 cities, not 100.
> > > It's *still* an advantage for A,  but it's not nearly as dramatic as your
> > > formula would indicate.
> > 
> > Yes, I was using somewhat extreme values just to demonstrate my point that 
> > it
> > feels wrong that the larger population you have in a city, the harder it
> > becomes to expand it (ignoring celebrations completly). Assuming 
> > availability
> > of a food surplus it seems logical that a huge metropolis should grow 
> > *faster*,
> > not slower than a small town.
> > 
> Well, another way of looking at the contradiction is as follows:
> City growth follows a nominally linear path 1,2,3,4,5,6,7....
> But, OTOH, we are given to believe that's supposed to represent
> something exponential. I.e. if size 1 is 10,000 people, size 2 is
> 20,000, size 3 is 50,000 and so on.  Or whatever.  But I definitely
> got the idea from the Civ manuals that the numbers were supposed to
> represent exponential, or at least faster than linear, growth.

In support of a constant foodbox, why does the growth have to be
exponential?  Why can't we just assume its linear and make it a constant
foodbox for gameplay sake?

> Consistent with this is the fact the the amount of food needed grows
> each time the city grows. (Fair enough, it's growing more each time)
> So far, it all makes sense.
> However, the problem is that production (of all kinds, shields, food,
> trade) only grows linearly with the size. In fact, the effect of the
> free city center + free shield + the fact that you tend to work the
> 'good' squares first is that the production actually grows more slowly 
> than linearly.
> To some extent, this is compensated for by the improvements you can
> build in big cities.  But not much.
> So I see the essential conflict as 'exponential growth' of a single
> city only leads to roughly linear growth of its production, whilst the 
> 'exponential growth' option of founding multiple cities leads to
> exponential growth of shields and food.
> To be brutally honest, I think people do Civ I too much of a justice
> (!) when they suggest that it was well-balanced.  I think Civ I had
> AIs which were fun to play against, and you could beat them in a variety of 
> different playing styles (because they were easy). But only the
> multiplayer features of freeciv (and civ II) provide a vicious enough
> evolution environment for people to notice that the game isn't
> balanced at all.

I highly agree here.  I think we need to find a balance that fits with
the environment we have created.

Paul Zastoupil

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