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

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: As if we needed another ics solution...

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: As if we needed another ics solution...
From: Michael Hasselmann <michael.hasselmann@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:21:55 +0100

Mike Jing wrote:
> Michael Hasselmann <michael.hasselmann@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >As you can easily see in the patch, the formula used is:
> >
> >+ pcity->shield_prod =
> >+   pcity->shield_prod * (100 + pcity->size * game.metrobonus) / 100;
> >+ pcity->trade_prod =
> >+   pcity->trade_prod * (100 + pcity->size * game.metrobonus) / 100;
> >
> >So a city with the size of 10, 20 or 29 has a bonus of 100%, 200% or
> >290%:
> >
> >     (100 + 10 * 10) / 100 = 2.00
> >     (100 + 20 * 10) / 100 = 3.00
> >     (100 + 29 * 10) / 100 = 3.90
> OK, so it's not as bad as the description led me to believe.  However, I
> still feel it will favor large cities too much, but I could be wrong.
> Mike

Now I somewhat confused. Wasn't the whole discussion about "How can we
put players who prefer empire building in a better situation so they can
compete ICS players?". We all came to the conclusion that 'vertical
growth', as some call it, isn't rewarded enough.

My idea has the big advantage that it isn't restricting anyone, but
rather enforces (vertical) empire building. ICS-players still have a
chance if their attacks are both massive and surprising, otherwise the
defender will have the time to use his extra resources, given by the
metrobonus, in order to defend or even strike back.

Nevertheless, if you feel that "it will favor large cities too much",
then just change it! In the end it's a server option. I just thought 10%
is a good standard value.

Additionally, if you look at the *exponential* population growth (inside
the city screen), compared to the *linear* growth of trade and
production, you would realize that the metrobonus is just another step
to more realism, and therefore isn't even near as high as the pop growth
would suggest. Then, a ctiy of the size 10 would need a
metrobonus-factor of 55 (550,000 pop at size 10 : 10,000 pop at size 1),
not just 2.

The idea of a metrobonus may sounds horrifying to you, as you fear
further unbalancing in the game, once the ICS-players switched to
vertical growth (but then it would mean they're indeed better players
;-) In case of this I just can ask you to try out this patch without any
prejudices. Then, if it still makes you feel unpleasant (even after a
test game), we can talk about whether it is a good or a bad idea to
introduce such a bonus.
So please try it out!

ciao Michael Hasselmann

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