[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]
<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=11946 >
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 07:45:14AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 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.
Partly true for shields, but there can be reasons to have a big production
in *that* city. Not true for food, because you want your city to shrink or
grow (esp. rapture) sometimes.
> 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
From my ignoring POV, the CMA should be *faster* if you remove the setting
constraints. But probably I'm wrong here.
> 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.
I don't move citizens either, but switching the CMA presets is an important
part of my strategy. Or are you saying, that a handful of presets will be
enough for everything? This might be true, if they are chosen carefully.
Christian Knoke * * * http://cknoke.de
* * * * * * * * * Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.