Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: June 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] An alternate nopox strategy
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] An alternate nopox strategy

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] An alternate nopox strategy
From: Terry Browning <terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>(by way of Jeff Mallatt <jjm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:16:15 -0400

I've had an idea for a different approach to nopox.

The change is to count non-native farming within the hinterland of a
city as if it were population. i.e. If Rome has size 3 and Naples is
farming 2 squares within the Rome's hinterland, then the city has a
stability as if it were size 5. Naples's city square counts as a farmed
square.

Consider the first few moves of a game:
The Americans begin by founding Washington on the first move, moving
their other settler East. The next move it moves East; then New York is
founded. Each city is within the other's hinterland. If each city places
it's citizen to work within the joint hinterland, each city has the
stability of a size 3 city. If Washington grows to size 2, it goes
straight into revolt.

The farmers are moved out of the joint area (Washington now has the
stability of size 3) and Washington's second citizen converts to a
settler. This moves two squares North and founds Boston. Washington
(still size 1) again has the stability of a city of size 3, even if New
York and Boston keep their farmers out of Washington's hinterland.
Washington is now crowded to the point of uselessness.

This approach has a number of advantages over the present system:
1 It kicks in earlier. A pox player will learn fast that that strategy
is doomed.
2 It does not punish large civilizations. A player can have any number
of cities that they can find room for, without penalty. For this reason,
this rule should be more popular with players since it doesn't threaten
their ambitions, only the pox.
3 It allows new aggressive tactics when one civilization has a city
close to a neighbour. A player tired of a treaty can cause unrest in a
nearby city, pressuring the neighbour to break the treaty.
4 The change reflects the usual human reactions of looking at territory
in a proprietorial way, envying neighbours and hating those they see as
encroaching and crowding. When neighbours are too close for comfort,
they can't be friends.

Just an idea I had while standing around yesterday afternoon.:-)

--
Terry



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