[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Some adjustments for buildings.ruleset

[Marko Lindqvist <marko.lindqvist@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Note that I'm not against reducing Colossus costs in default ruleset, 
just writing some observations from rather slow games (high 
researchcost, foodbox etc) we play.
 Slower gameplay means longer time for any wonder to pay for itself 
before getting obsolete.
 And warning: After writing how Colossus affects big cities I continued 
slippery road to some more smallpox/largepox talk, once more... (No, I 
have not copy-pasted from archives even if this seems familiar to someone :)
ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> It is really hard balance the building costs, the best way is to compute
> how big is the gain from it for a special way to play the game.
>
> Colossus only helps until flight, it was an early wonder (BC), it helps only
> for 1 city.
>
> 100 shields equals 400 gold, with a size 8 city you get 8 additional
> trade. Without additional buildings you need 50 rounds to get back the
> investment.
 But if you build Colossus, you really should consider using it 
effectively. This means building additional buildings. If you get 8 base 
additional trade and have library (& marketplace) -> additional trade 
from Colossus = 12. If I'm one finishing Colossus, I usually run for 
Copernicus & Newton to same city and always build library & university 
asap. (And when city has library & university one really wants to 
increase base trade, since now any increase to it is multiplied by 
buildings -> 4 traderoutes, remembering that value of traderoutes is 
increased by base trade, so Colossus affects here too (Last game we 
played worst traderoute my Colossus city had, just before discovery of 
flight ruined everything, had base worth of some 55/turn, best about 
100/turn))
 I always expand as fast as possible, as if playing smallpox. Still, 
I've found out that my real power does not come from smallpox style but 
from those core cities with as many wonders as I can grab, and almost 
all buildings, producing 100-500 trade/turn (or more later in the game, 
but game is usually resolved and ended before that) (not _base_ trade of 
course, but final tax+sci+lux)). Small villages are required only to 
control land, so no other player can build (smallpox) cities there, and 
to be homecity for three maintenancefree units under Communism (Huge 
army is not possible otherwise, and merely large army cannot defend 
against allied enemies) And naturally, I don't _want_ to keep them as 
small villages, they just never have time to grow into metropolises.
 Well, in very early stages smallpox is effective due to well known 
facts that without improvements, two size 1 cities (2x2=4 squares) are 
worth one size 3 city (1x4=4) and easier to maintain. And _real_, 
optimized smallpox style would probably win even with our slow gameplay 
rules. Worst strategy would probably be some middle way between smallpox 
and largepox; infrastructure must be excellent for largepox advantages 
to appear, middle-sized cities with some buildings simply don't work.
Example 1: Maintenance of aqueduct is 2/turn. When city is only size 9, 
usually also when size 10, aqueduct is causing more expences than 
income. After city finally grows to size 11, it takes long time to cover 
these accumulated expences.
Example 2: Lets say that city size increase of one avarages to 1.5 point 
increase in base trade. Granary has maintenance cost of 1/turn. If time 
to increase city size by one is 'a' without granary, granary yields 
(-1)*a + 0.5*1.5*a = -0.25a immediately after its built. Maintenance 
cost for marketplace is also 1/turn. If its built to city that has tax 
output of 2 currently, it yields (-1)*a + 0.5*2*a = 0. So, it makes no 
sense to build either granary or marketplace? Let's consider situation 
where we build both to same city:
(-1)*a + (-1)*a + 0.5*2*a + 0.5*1.5*1.5*a = +0.125a
 Above is not actually true in freeciv, since results are rounded in 
every step, but it should make clear my point. Even when having couple 
of buildings is worse than having nothing at all, having lots of 
buildings might be even better, since (good) effects of one building can 
increase effects of another.

 - Caz