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

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Hasselmann <michael.hasselmann@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, the rewards for large cities are pretty big already, but they come 
in too late to matter when playing against ICS.  This is because it takes a 
lot of effort to get cities to grow to size, and when you concentrate on 
vertical growth you are very vulnerable to attack.  However, Once you manage 
to get past the development stage, your big cities will be extremely 
powerful, even without any kind of metrobonus.
This is just my personal opinion.  Like I said, I could be wrong.

> 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.
I do agree it looks like a good idea to try out.

> 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.
The critical stage of development is around size 8-12, and that's where it 
needs the most help.  What I am worried about is that it would make realy 
big cities (size 20-30) too powerful.  Because the bonus is proportional to 
city size, reducing the percentage increase won't help the situation.
> 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.
Well, I am not sure that we can use the population as a guideline here, 
although it is a nice idea.
> 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!
My apologies for being so critical without even playing it.  I will give it 
a try as soon as possible.
Mike

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com