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: "Benoit Hudson" <benoit.hudson@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:22:42 -0700
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

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

> 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).

Sounds reasonable.  How does that work when cities are built near each other?

> > 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.

Why is that bad?  If you don't build aqueducts, you *should* top out
at N=8 according to the default ruleset.

-- Benoît





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