Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2005:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#11946) a minimal surplus of -20 is too high

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#11946) a minimal surplus of -20 is too high

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#11946) a minimal surplus of -20 is too high
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:45:14 -0800
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: >

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Christian Knoke wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:07:59AM -0800, Jason Short wrote:
> Is there any case, where the minimum restrictions for gold, science, and
> luxury per city do service any purpose? In my experience, I always can
> achieve better results with the factor settings and/or tax rates.

I agree. For civ-wide outputs like gold and science there is no point in
having minimums. The city-wide output luxury serves no purpose in itself,
and only through its effects on happiness/unhappiness or rapture growth is
it at all relevant.

Actually, even city-wide outputs may not best be represented by strict
minimums. What a player usually means by setting a few points on food or
shield minimums is that having a few of these outputs is very important,
but having many may be less important than other outputs.

But doing anything useful with this knowledge is probably too difficult. I
still think we should dumb down the interface here, and use a fast
algorithm which approaches perfection rather than a slow one that ensures

When I play, I _never_ move a single citizen. I would rather not even want
to think about citizens, or CMA presets. I find these parts of the game,
the low-level micromanagement, utterly boring. I wonder how many others
think the same.

  - Per

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