Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2001: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: another ics solution...

# [Freeciv-Dev] Re: another ics solution...

[Top] [All Lists]

 To: "Miguel Farah F." Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: another ics solution... From: Mike Kaufman Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 18:46:00 -0600 (CST)

```
> >perhaps adding (as a server option of course) a production penalty might
> >be a solution.
> >Ex.: up to a certain number of cities, a chariot, for example, costs X.
> >If I would build Y% more cities, then a chariot would cost X+Y to build
> >(or whatever algorithm you choose, you could also make it discrete
> >increments)
>
> I disagree on this proposal (as it is): it's not the same to have 50
> cites, all size 1-2, than having 50 cities, most of them bigger than,
> say, size 8.
>
> Most proposals to eliminate ICS, IMHO, forget to pay attention to this
> factor.

OK, so I didn't pay attention to this when I thought about it, but I do
have a response:
There is a big difference in the production potential for a city of size 8
than a city of size 2. Making up numbers to prove my point I have an
example: if the average size 2 city has a a production of 2, then building
a regular old settler takes 20 turns. If a large city has a production of
7, then the same settler takes 6 turns.

Now we implement large city rule and because of large # of cities, settler
cost goes up to say 60. Now production takes 30 and 9 turns
respectively. The ICS player has lost 7 turns on the non-ICS player to
build a settler.

If I've got that many large cities, I had better be kicking a lot of butt.
I don't know why building settlers would be a priority at that point. It's
critical for the ICS player.

This should work really well (at hobbling ICS) if we just penalize
settler production instead of all production. ('course it's all
theoretical)

I do like the ICSmeter idea though.

--mike

```