Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: September 2005:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#13845) Increasing the appeal of very large cities
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#13845) Increasing the appeal of very large cities

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: osyluth@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#13845) Increasing the appeal of very large cities
From: "Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:10:01 -0700
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=13845 >

Benoit Hudson wrote:
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=13845 >
> 
>>The only thing wrong with that model is that it is not transparent what
>>affects population growth.
> 
> We can make it transparent if we want, with all the tooltips.
> 
>>Yeah, the growth rate was something like proportional to
>>    (size) * sqrt(maxsize - size)
>>I'm sure we could find the exact formula somewhere.
> 
> 
> What do we set maxsize to?  Maybe min(N, FOOD_COST * prod[O_FOOD]),
> where N is 8 before aqueduct, 12 before sewers, and unlimited
> afterwards?  This makes population growth still depend on food, but
> maybe that's OK.

In moo2 the maxsize was fixed (based on the planet's characteristics).

In mom it was dependent on the terrain.  Each grassland allowed 1 point 
of population, each hills and forest and ocean 1/2 point, each mountain 
0 points (or something like that).  Something like this wouldn't be that 
hard to implement (see my "death to smallpox" ticket).

> My formula can generate maxsize < size, which means either my formula
> is bad or we need to special-case that.

It's bad because eventually all cities will end up at size N.

-jason





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