[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Migration

["Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Per I. Mathisen,RV Trondheim,,
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
> > Migration - a proposed major rule change for Freeciv
>
> This idea is not very sound, I'm afraid.

That remains to be seen.  One negative opinion does not make an idea
unsound.

> It creates too many units that
> may have to micromanaged (sent back home)

I think if you can set a Policy option such as "always order units home
on contact," then you don't have a micromanagement problem.  You'd just
have a border patrol.

> or watch move around every turn.

Why does this matter?  Surely it's not an animation issue.  The Civ
clients as they are do not track battles, and IMO games generally
shouldn't try to track the battles.

> It goes against the KISS principle.

As far as implementing the idea of Migration, I disagree.  It's a very
simple approach.  As far as adding new major features to a game... are
you opposed to that in principle?  Do you think the ideal of Freeciv is
to freeze it at Civ II compatibility?  If so, then you are never going
to solve Smallpox.  You have to actually do something if you want
solutions.

> Also I dislike the idea of not being in control of my population ;)

It's not your population.  People vote with their feet.  That's the core
mechanic by which Smallpox is defeated.  Being in control of your
population is exactly why Smallpoxers always win.

And personally, I really *like* the idea of playing a true Police State
with my people.  Having only a few roads leading out of the country,
ordering people to turn back, killing the non-compliant.  :-)  Or heck,
just killing them!  Wouldn't it be a blast to have to fight your way
around / through the refugees?  Create sheer panic and terror as you
invade a country.  You could even have Rules Of Engagement to minimize
or maximize the flow of Refugees when you attack!


> > OTHER CORE RULE CHANGES
> > -----------------------
> >
> > Some other basic rule changes needed to make this work:
> >
> > --> Settlers can no longer be used to increase a city's
> size by 1. If a
> > Settler is added to a city, it only increases the city's
> food boxes by
> > 10 units.That is because a Settler is only 10,000 people.
> The current
> > Civ / Freeciv system is absurd, where a cheap Settler
> becomes worth an
> > arbitrary number of foodboxes if a player is sufficiently
> bureaucratic
> > and micromanagerial with his unit production.
> >
> > --> Ergo, the creation of a Settler also merely reduces a
> city's food
> > boxes by 10.The work is in coughing up the shields, not the people.
> > Founding cities will be rather easy.Making them grow will
> be tougher.
>
> I think these ideas are very good, on the other hand. A
> bigpox city is *a
> lot* more punished by building a settler than a smallpox city
> nowadays.

Well, enjoy them then.  But please note that by themselves, without
Migration, they may very well *encourage* Smallpox.  Griefers use little
cities to spawn Settlers for big cities; at least this results in big
cities!  I don't think they're going to do that if they need 6 Settlers
to increase a city from size 5 to 6.  What they will do is spawn out
Settlers continuously from their big cities.  The only throttle will be
available food, as the population hit is trivial.




Cheers,
Brandon Van Every