Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2004:
[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9589) Patch: Government rebalancing
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9589) Patch: Government rebalancing

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] (PR#9589) Patch: Government rebalancing
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:26:39 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9589 >

> [marko.lindqvist@xxxxxxxxxxx - Wed Aug 11 05:58:56 2004]:
> 
>   We should allow one unit / city for defense without additional 
> (compared to present) costs by setting unit_free_gold=1. Only if 
> one is building massive armies under rep/dem should gold upkeep 
> jump in. Maybe make it even unit_free_gold=2 in order not to be 
> too harsh... playtesting required.

As Jason already said, a per-city bonus would only favour smallpox. 
Furthermore, my intention is to reduce the huge trade advantage of
Rep/Dem, so giving free units would defeat the purpose.

>   I'd suggest setting unit_gold_factor=0 for most governments, but 
> 1 for republic and democracy. Then make uk_gold=1 for all military
> units (or only to offensive ones?) So there would be no changes for 
> despotism/monarchy/communism but gold upkeep would be introduced to 
> republic/democracy.

That's my original suggestion as well.  The gold upkeep should be for
all military units, as offense and defense can't be separated, e.g.
"offensive" units are essential in defense as well. 

> [per - Wed Aug 11 10:25:18 2004]:
> 
> Another idea is to remove Republic and Democracy's tile bonus in
> favour of special bonuses for buildings.

That's a more radical change, but may be necessary since the tile bonus
is a bit too much.  It also favours city development.  I think it's
worth a try.

Mike Jing



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]