[Freeciv] Re: some questions

[K@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Andrew McGuinness wrote:

> I'm not sure about increasing the food value of grassland and plains - 
> that would certainly increase city growth by making it much easier to 
> support very large cities, but it would completely change the game in
> the process.


As I understand it this is what many people want: no ICS + city 
improvements to be worthwhile. If both effects are realized this 
has necessarily to change the way to play freeciv completely, at least 
how you deal with cities. So, there is no way round to more or less
"completely change the game".

Let me put forward the arguments for more food:
1.) As I tried to explain on Dec. 20th this is a way to have exponential 
    growth (by city growth) without ICS. 
2.) It means huge cities. Do we want hundreds of cities of size 1 or 
    some smaller cities and some of size 20++? Only with huge cities 
    improvements like libraries are worthwhile and sanitary improvements 
    like aqueducts become essential (note that necessary city improvements 
    w.r.t. sanitation will restrict growth in early game and prevent mega 
    cities in the beginning).
3.) To overcome ICS, as I understand it, no additional
    worker for a size 1 city is essential. Any model which gives the 
    first worker more food allows for exponential growth by ICS and
    might bias towards ICS. Without additional food for the first worker 
    and no increase of food for grassland on the other hand it is 
    not possible to grow a city to size two, at all, unless there are 
    specials or you build irrigation (since the maximal production of 
    food is 2 as is the minimal consumption). I feel a city working
    on grassland without irrigation should grow slowly but grow to have 
    a realistic model. Note, if grassland gives 3 food and food specials 
    4 food, it only growth half as fast to size two compared to a city
    with food special. I also think tha if only specials give more than 2 food
    and they are not as frequent as grassland is presently you don't overcome 
    the small city syndrome.
    The reason is the following: any new worker not put on a special
    does not increase the food surplus and thus there is no
    exponential growth unless you work on specials. This means that the
    strategy to yield exponential growth is to build settlers like crazy
    and let them build new cities which work on specials. Since exponential 
    growth wins at the end, you have the same small city strategy as currently
    only with the cities being more distant
4.) I feel more food without extra worker and constant (or slightly increasing)
    foodbox to be a realistic and natural model which will certainly overcome 
    ICS and make city improvements, at least, more important than presently:
    It is changing only a few (but very basic) parameters while many people 
    proposed to adjust very special parameters to punish ICS or reward building
    some improvements, e.g., by increasing minimum city distance or 
    tremendously increasing the effect of a library. Somehow, I prefer to 
    change some basic parameters that then naturally results in larger cities
    (larger cities are then a consequence of the underlying growth model!) 
    compared to an artificial punishing and rewarding here and there.

Of course, the counter arguments are welcome...

K


P.S.:

Paul wrote
> Someone pointed out to me a potential problem with it - that players
> will always build on mountains and hills because they don't have to
> use the center square.  This may make warfare unfeasibly difficultBuilding

I agree with Bobby on this:

> In prehistoric times, people often did prefer to found their villages on
> hilltops, and for exactly the reason you mention.  Europe is peppered with 
> Iron
> Age "hilltop forts" which served as refuges for small prehistoric communities.

I think it is natural to build the city on a hill and not
within a sea of grassland if war is likely.
For this reason, I would also like an option
that the first worker does or does not work the city square.
Maybe, one needs to punish building on a mountain somewhat
(e.g., one could consider that the defense value of a mountain city is
only 2 instead of 3 for a mountain without a city since
the city naturally needs to be in the mountain valley or
other easier accessible areas. Or it could take the settler
5 turns to build the mountain city since it is rather difficult 
to build a city in this area).