[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#5419) Marketplace should have 0 upkeep.

["jjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:37:22PM -0700, ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 02:24:43PM -0700, jjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:55:31PM -0700, ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Ok lets see. What happens to a "i build many improvements player" when he
> > > doesn't have to pay for marketplaces(+banks and stock exchanges).
> > > 
> > > The gain from Adam Smiths is reduced. 
> > > Can rapture without having taxrate > 0
> > > Has a little bit more money than he would have with standard rules. So
> > > he can research faster, or is more powerful in war.
> > 
> > In other words,  he has a chance against the "i build many cities player".
> > In my experience, the "i build many improvements player" is destroyed by 
> > the "i build many cities player" long before they get around to building 
> > say a stock exchange.  Does anyone out there have a different experience?
> 
> Think i could prove you thats possible to win a game against an ics
> player with a build many improvements tactic.
> 
> But in normal game the ICS player should win because of the nearly
> exponentiell growth of his production.

As long as there is land available and ignoring factors like city unhappy size,
the growth curve should be exponential for both because each new city allows 
new settlers to be produced, so you have a feedback loop.  The difference is 
the amount of time that is between the building a city and sending out 
new settlers to build new cities.

I played a pubserver game today (185163).  Out of 135 cities, only one had a 
marketplace, yet I am pretty sure every player had the ability to build 
marketplaces. There were roughly 20 improvements built in the game not 
counting palaces.  

Marketplaces are an expensive improvement that very rarely get built 
because they are almost useless in actual games.  

-- 
Josh Cogliati