[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#8606) Some adjustments for buildings.ruleset

["Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=8606 >

Perhaps we should first define the problem and what is an acceptable way
of solving it.

In my view, there are two key problems in the default rules:
  - players do not use city improvements
  - smallpox and ICS are too good compared to other strategies

What is _not_ a problem in my view:
  - smallpox and ICS as such
  - the game speed

I want to preserve both smallpox and ICS as viable strategies a player can
use, and I think the current play time for a game on pubserver should not
be affected. (If anything, it should be made faster for the beginning of
the game.)

When it comes to the rules, I am a bit of a wary conversative. It is easy
to make poor decisions whose ramnifications we cannot easily see until
much later. So I do not a single, radical changes to destroy ICS or
smallpox. I want a series of smaller changes that make other strategies
viable.

For this reason, I am skeptical of increasing settlercost. It is a
draconic, single solution to the problem, which only makes ICS worse, and
not other strategies better.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Thomas Strub wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:30:43AM -0700, Jason Short wrote:
> > In Freeciv currently, the game advances much faster than "real life".
> > Under this patch that will be even more true.

Well, _that_ is easy to change. Just increase research cost, or change the
research cost model.

> > I think rather than decreasing the building costs it might be better
> > to increase unit costs (the two aren't exactly the same, though).

I do not want to make the game slower.

> > I'm also in favor of having units require specific buildings to be
> > built.

Yes, this is a possibility. It is a good game mechanic, tried and tested
in many other games. However, I've tried several times to come up with a
good ruleset doing this. I think we must change buildings.ruleset somewhat
to accomodate such a model, so that the buildings required logically match
the units.

(Anyone else want to have a go at making a impr_req units.ruleset?)

One approach may be to start with adding Harbour as a precondition for all
ships except for Trireme.

> > I do agree that the worthless wonders should cost less.Or perhaps the
> > really good wonders should cost more...

A good game has many good strategies that are viable. We should be careful
not to _remove_ good strategies from the game, but instead add new ones,
IMHO.

> Shakespeare Theatre reduces the unhappines from the people, you need ~1
> entertainer for 3 people + you don't need temple, colosseum, cathedral
> (40+100+120) = 260 think making it cheaper than 300 isn't a good idea.

You can only build one of these, it is on a first-come basis, and it is
something you will have to build instead of another wonder. So I think the
suggested price is fair enough. Do people build Shakespeare's now?

Hmmm. Maybe it is possible to life statistical information about wonder
building from the pubserver data?

> Richards has a to short time with use, think changing the obsolete by to
> a later tech would be a better idea.

Possibly.

  - Per