[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7225) One free aggressive unit in Republic?

["ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7225 >

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 05:08:49AM -0800, Mark Metson wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7225 >
> 
> 
> I, I hope this is the right address for freeciv-dev, for some reason the 
> mails labelled [freeciv-dev] are showing rt as the reply address and I am 
> using reply to send this.
> 
> I am using 1.14.1 on Redhat 8.0, installed from the RPM.
> 
> I am a republic, with no happiness worders (I only have the Colossus, 
> which I dont usually build but desperately needed in order to reach 
> republic with researchcost set to 50).
> 
> I am noticing that when I move chariots out of cities, they are not 
> showing up with an unhappy face on their home city city-screen, and not 
> causing unhappiness in their homecity. Not all of the chariots do this, so 
> it looks like maybe I am allowed one free aggressive unit per city???
> 
> If I move out a second unit, then I get the unhappiness.
> 
> I cannot find anything in the docs that mentions allowing one free 
> aggressive unit per city under a Republic? Is that normal? (Bug or 
> feature???)

Ingame help:

Government -> Republic -> last chapter:
"The citizens of a city will tolerate 1 aggressive unit; subsequent
units will generate 1 unhappy citizen each."

So it is a well documented feature.

> By the way, I am trying to find a good level of researchcost higher than 
> the default. I am finding that 50 is insane because despotism is really 
> really really pathetic. Even building the colossus in my capital and using 
> settlers from everywhere to max the cities near my capital it was still 
> pathetic. I am thinking maybe it might be necessary, if one really wants 
> to use hiugh researchcost, to adjust the penalties of despotisms slightly. 
> I am wondering whether despotism is worse in the default ruleset than it 
> was in, say, civ-I ???

I don't know how big the penalties from civ-I were. But i don't think that
money-corruption is much higher than in civ-I.
 
> I am also findign that the ability to buold coinage is essential, again 
> due to having to remain in despotism so long and despotism being so very 
> lousy. How balanced is despotism really? Does it have to be this lousy 
> just to prevent its advantage of number of units supported from being too 
> overpowering later on in the game when maybe some people might find it 
> useful to wwitch to despotism in orer to carry out a war? Does anyone 
> actually do that? Or is despotism just plain crippled?

Despotism is the starting government, slightly better than anarchy but
much worse than all other governments.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Strub  ***  eMail ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reden ist Silber,
      Schweigen ist Gold!