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 development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption
From: Gregor Zeitlinger <zeitling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:51:39 +0100 (CET)
Reply-to: gregor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Mike Jing wrote:
> 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.
My idea was that if you have other means to deal with unhappyness, those
are considered first and you only have to pay for whats not been taken
care of already. This makes it very predictable I think. The effective
luxury rate could even be calculated, so that you can identify where you
have to pay and employ military or elvises there.

> I got your drift.  I prefer a uniform corruption level for all cities.
So do I, for predictability. But I'd like to combine it with auto-elvis or
pay-for-unhappyness (see above) because otherwise you have to check each
city each time a city is founded.

> 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.
Ok. That seems reasonable.


Gregor Zeitlinger      

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