Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS - a thought from CivII

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS - a thought from CivII

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: SamBC <sambc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: ICS - a thought from CivII
From: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:17:47 +0000

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:51:20AM -0000, SamBC wrote:
> Apologies if this has been said before, I haven't finished reading the
> threads yet, but I wanted to say this while I remember.
> IIRC, in Civ/CivII, small cities tended to produce very little trade -
> it was not unusual for a badly-placed, or overcrowded (by other cities)
> city to have 1 trade only even at size 2.
> This in turn prevented science until a city had grown slightly - past
> two in many cases. In ICS the problem would be worse, as most squares
> (IIRC) did not bear trade - only rivers and sea unless improved. You
> can't get that many cities to share them.

And roads.  That's why I built roads, in Civ.

> Also, in Civ/II rivers seemed to be fewer and farther between - just an
> observation.

Yes.  There's some kind of trade bonus isn't there?  Or science bonus?

> Now, trying to wage a successful war with slowly developing technology
> is hard - even if you can outnumber your opponent, if he can out-tech
> you a level or two you won't beat him.

/me nods


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