Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:05:51 -0500
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

Gregor Zeitlinger <zeitling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

the most simple would be to have the same level of curruption in each city.

I really like that idea.

Or even easier: no corruption in each city, but a central reduction of
gold, sience (maybe even lux) depending on the number of cities.

That would be taking it too far, and make it less transparent.

4b) Pool all luxury together and then distribute it among the cities to
make all people content, or, if sufficient, happy.

Then how should it be distributed?  How do you predict which city will
become unhappy?
yes. you would have just gold and sience and each time a citizen is
unhappy after all local effects it consumes 2 gold. very easy actually.
you can replace 2 gold with 2 science or 1 gold/1 sience or whatever.

Ok, so there will no longer be a luxury rate, and whatever luxury is needed to keep the peace among all your population is deducted from your income, and whatever is left is split between science and tax. This does sound appealing at first, not least because it gets rid of the annoying civil disorder. But taking away the player's control over luxury spending would most likely to be frustrating, because the player does have other means at his disposal in dealing with unhappiness, such as entertainers, martial law, etc. This mandatary luxury law may be efficient, but the overall effect seems to be less predictable.

The loss of excess luxury is not a rounding error.  It's a feature.
yes, it would be eliminated. Not sure weather it's disirable.

I think we have to think it through and see what the effects will be.

ln(n)/n produces an aggregated trade that develpes with ln(n) (given all
trade values for all cities are equal), if the same coeffient is
multiplied by each city, just as (1/n) produces that development if a
different n is taken for each city.

I got your drift.  I prefer a uniform corruption level for all cities.

Food probably should not suffer from the same kind of corruption/waste.
However, this gives me an idea of removing the hard limits on city
Ok, but the basic food supply should be increased alot, so that after
corruption there's something left.

I said "should NOT", so there will NOT be any corruption/waste in this sense for food. But instead of capping the city's population at a certain number without an aquaduct/sewersystem/whatever, we can just make it grow slower than it would with one by using the "aquaduct loss" for food, or enlarging the food storage box to achieve the same effect.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

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