[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#6183) barbarians on the poles

["John Wheeler" <jdwheeler42@xxxxxxxxx>]

[per - Sat Sep 20 10:17:25 2003]:

> I'm in favour of both huts and barbarians not appearing on arctic and
> tundra tiles. This should be set and changeable in terrain.ruleset.

I definitely agree all this should be ruleset based (e.g., NO_HUTS or
NO_BARBARIANS flags for individual terrain types -- or *maybe* server
variables should be used, if consensus cannot be reached on appropriate
default behavior.)  If some one is making up a wildly different terrain
set, there may be other inhospitable terrain, such as lava.

When barbarians have a limited lifespan, there's not much point in
appear on the poles or deep in an arctic region, because they'll
generally die before reaching a city.  (Also, the mapgenerator should
determine what is polar.)

However, I was amused when playing a large map of Earth on Civ2 and
barbarians kept popping up in Siberia and the Yukon.  Eventually it got
to the point I built cities there just to suppress the barbarians. 
(Which reminds me, can barbarians be created within one's border?  I
would prefer that they not be.)

Also, not having huts on the poles makes logical sense too, but when I
play with huts, they do provide a nice little bonus for being the first
to explore the arctic.  Of course, finding an advanced tribe in the
middle of a glacier can be annoying (or anywhere you can't access a
square with at least 2 food).  IIRC, what Civ2 did was that advanced
tribes could only be found on squares that will produce at least 2 food
as a city, otherwise settlers were found.

To summarize, my defaults would be

       Huts Barb
Pole   Yes* No
Arctic Yes* No
Tundra Yes  Yes
* meaning settlers instead of advanced tribes

-- 

++JohnWheeler