[Freeciv] Re: A proposal concerning the game rules
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
> 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.
Well, he was fast. It's already done :).
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.