[Freeciv] Re: A proposal concerning the game rules

[LoD <lod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I don't think that stops people from exclusively horizontal expansion
> (smallpox). It is still as good, it just takes longer. Players that play
> with big cities will also be more heavily penalised, since two pop from a
> big city is a lot higher cost than two pop from a small city. In short I
> don't think the civ3 approach to smallpox worked.
> 

On the other hand, AFAIK, most people make their biggest expansion
during the early years, so, regardless of their strategy they build
settlerss in small cities. However, I confess that I haven't played Civ3
yet (which doesn't stop me from being the main webmaster of a Civ3 site
;)), so I don't know whether the way I try to enforce will actually do
any good. I trust you have, or you have tested this paradigm on Freeciv.
Or haven't you ;)?

> > So, how about having Workers cost nil in terms of pop (as you
> > suggest), and Settlers - 2? The latter may slow down the game, but the
> > former will compensate it. And combined, they will encourage a more
> > 'vertical' aproach to empire expansion.
> 
> Pop cost free workers will benefit vertical development a lot. But I think
> the solution to smallpox is to tie science development tighter to big
> cities instead.
> 

Like a research point bonus for bigger cities for example?

> > Fortunately, I may be able to 'inspire' a friend of mine (who plays civ
> > games, and owes me one :)) to make the relevant graphics for trident and
> > isotrident. Possibly by the end of this work-week.
> 
> That would be really great.
> 
> Yours,
> Per
> 

Well, he was fast. It's already done :).
http://guild.ask-klan.net.pl/freeciv/workergraph/

Yes, it looks a little bit 'too modern', but after a second glance,
in-game, it fits quite nicely with the other units. Comments welcome.

Cheers,
Nick