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

[Maciej Czapkiewicz <geczapki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Two answer in one letter:

Reinier Post:

>M.C.:
> > > 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).
> 
> This is already possible (we have 'scientists') but the parameters that
> control their use may need to be changed - I never use them.

Of course - for example one 'scientist' in city of size 5
with average trade points, should balance currently science
output from 4 small (size 1...2) cities.
 
-------------------------------------

Michael Hasselmann:

> 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 :-)

Well, if player is forced to have big cities to ensure big science
power,
he have also better possibilities to defend those "core" cities,
than a widely spread small cicties.
Of course, small/medium cities are still important,
but not so vital.

> 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. 
 
If think, that idea with small overall science level and
setting workers as additional researchers is better.
You can decide, if the given city should have big
production (you put workers on mining etc, build factory),
or rather big science power (switch some workers off and
turn them into researchers, build library first).
Note also, that small maximum level of overall science
production cause that you have more money.
With current settings, it is really hard to balance
income and revenues, especially in multiplayer game
with small timeout option (i have few seconds to decide
what building set - bank or barrack etc).
Setting small amount of overall science is giving
more realistic situation - you have small cities 
which are given trade points (taxes) and production
points (small from each but big if you have many of them),
and big cities which have _chance_ of big literacy production.

BTW, palace should give 1 extra science point per turn
(to avoid 0 science speed).

> > 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, find it difficult to make such statements (in which way did
> Europe win? In the way that Linux comes from here?)
read some medieval history ;-)
Europe was in really trouble, then large amount of
mongols horsemens were steamrolling over east and central
territories. But Europe is not under Mongolian goverment now,
unlike like in some freeciv games ;-)

> > Had Great Britain loss its science power
> > after II WW? 
> Another difficult statement/question...


I meant, that GB loose overseas territories,
but they was not worthy for science
(only for production/trade).
These territories were newly conquered, so english
civilisation on those territories was rather tiny
(tiny for science production).
Science production was located in "core" cities on their 
home island.


> > 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. 

I dont say about realism. It is just implemented.
Just decide - where you will set poduction of settler or 
pikemen/riflemen - in large city or in small city?

With my science setting, you should set this
production rather in small city, because
in big city you should use production to set
buildings such university etc.
Eventually you can set production of tanks etc
in city in mining area.
But usually you will want to leave some of "workers"
in your city as researchers, especially in cities
with high trade points.

> 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. 

Who is speaking about military details?
This is misanderstood, sory for my english language ;-)
I only want propose to tweak some parameters, to make game
more realistic _and_ playable _and_ fun.

MC