[Freeciv] Re: Big cities vs small cities (was: smallpox syndrome)

[Michael Hasselmann <michael.hasselmann@xxxxxx>]

Maciej Czapkiewicz wrote:

> In reality, many small cities/villages are
> producing very small amount of literacy,
> in comparison to big cities.
> In this simulation, we have opposite situation:
> player with many small cicties will won over
> player which take carry on his few big cities.

That's exactly the problem we're talking about. Even more "unbalanced"
than the expanding phase is - as you already pointed out - the
conquering phase:

> On the other hand, simulation with current settings
> is very unstable - if one nation is starting to conquere
> another one, it's science power become higher,
> and his opponent his loosing cities _and_ science power.
> Science power depend also on territory.

...by the given means there's actually no way to really defend yourself
once you've got attacked. If it goes to war size matters (surprise
attacks are secondary), and not strategy (which is okay for real time
action, but in the same time it is quite poor for a so-called
"turn-based" strategy game like Freeciv).
Continueing this thought, I would be interested in a rather peaceful way
to end the game - as a true alternative - although I can't figure out
how it would fit in or what it could look like. But this is another
topic :-)

> My proposition:
> Maximal science production should be very small,
> for example 20% for Despotism, 30% for Monarchy,
> 40% for Republic, 50% for Communism and Democracy.
> But each settler in the city (for cities bigger that 3)
> can be set as a "researcher", and is collecting large
> amount of science (for example 0.5 science point from
> every trade point surplus in Despotism and Monarchy,
> 0.75 in Republic and Communism, 1 in Democracy).

Sounds interesting. In fact, I had the same in mind (to put big cities
in a better situation as they are now) when I suggested to additionally
increase the trade- and production output per city size. At the same
time we probably have to think about new defense mechanism (e.g.
auto-attack as soon as unit appears)
 
> Now, player with many tiny cities can be still powerfull
> at the early stage of the game.
> Like Mongols ;-)
> But if you take care on your "core" cities,
> you will win like Europe won.

Well, Ì find it difficult to make such statements (in which way did
Europe win? In the way that Linux comes from here?)
Nevermind - I think I understand what you mean, as you're absolutely
right to not damn ICS just because it's successful. We just need more
ways to win (some more of you already said that.)

> Had Great Britain loss its science power
> after II WW?

Another difficult statement/question...

> Large amount of small cities is still important -
> it give you not only control over territory,
> but also big production of military units
> (peasants were always used as "meat" :-)

You talking about cannon fodder? I don't think it's a good idea to be
too realistic at this point. In a way I like chess 'cause it's a very
"clean" (abstracted) war-game. I wouldn't like it if Freeciv gets too
much into military details. Without wanting to discipline you (Who/What
gives me the right to do so?): Take care where to place smileys, as it
is a serious topic you're touching there. You surely don't wanna hurt
anybody's feelings here.


ciao Michael Hasselmann