[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Freeciv] empty treasury and negative income

[Jason Dorje Short <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> On 2006-02-16, at 13.53, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
>
> > Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> >
> > > What is effect of having an empty treasury and negative income at the 
> > > same time?
> >
> > Buildings get sold.  This increases both income and treasury. With 
> > unit upkeeps I assume the unit would simply be disbanded if it can't 
> > be paid for.
> > There is a minor bug (part of PR#724 IIRC) in that upkeep is done 
> > city-by-city instead of player-by-player.  So it's possible that you 
> > have a city with -5 income that gets calculated first and has to sell 
> > a building, even though your other city with a +50 income could easily 
> > pay for it.  Thus the order of city iteration matters.
> > -jason
> What happen when you run out of buildings and still have negative income 
> (theoretically)?
That is not possible in the current system, and so not covered.

> The reason I'm asking is that I'm calculating the impact of having 
> players pay upkeep for cities, as a way to limit expansion in the early 
> game, and ultimately to benefit largepoxing. I don't want to see cities 
> disbanding when the economy hit rock bottom though. Instead negative 
> income you can't pay for by other means, should turn into negative 
> science output instead, effectively halting research when you run out of 
> cash.
What you want is to have a building - like a town hall - that is 
required for building settlers.  The town hall can have upkeep.  I 
believe you can even configure things so that each new city 
automatically gets a town hall.
> In practice, I'm imagining city upkeep as a variable of your government; 
> for example Despotism-4, Monarchy-2, the rest 1 or 0 (needs to be 
> balanced of course.) To speed up the early game, the Palace could give 
> an extra income of 6 or so under Despotism/Monarchy.
Hmm.

-jason