Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: August 2002:
[Freeciv] Re: How to solve ICS - increasing settlercost

[Freeciv] Re: How to solve ICS - increasing settlercost

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Strub <ue80@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miguel Farah <miguel@xxxxx>, freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv] Re: How to solve ICS - increasing settlercost
From: Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:30:20 +0200

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:43:25PM +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Thomas Strub wrote:
> > cmd 5 and other things give smallpox too. Build as many cities you can,
> > no cityimprovements and so on. For you smallpox is a high density of
> > cities. For me its building only settlers, military units, caravans and
> > wonders. No citiyimprovements.
> >
> > Even wtih cmd 5 its better to build new cities before building a temple.
> That is exactly the problem. City improvements are _not good enough_. They
> are not necessary. So why do you insist on changing _units_?
> There should be a clear reason why a player should build city
> improvements, and I think that should be to get tax, science, luxury and
> access to advanced units. Unfortunately, it is currently possible get all
> four without any improvements at all. This is the problem.
> If we want to make buildings not irrelevant, we should make them better. I
> have already suggested doubling science bonuses of all buildings and
> doubling research cost. If this is not sufficient, this can be combined
> with giving most units gold upkeep and doubling buildings' tax bonuses. If
> _that_ is not sufficent, we can require that very advanced units like
> tanks, mech inf etc are built in cities with adequate mass production
> facilities (ie factory), that diplomats require Courthouse, or ...
> something, you get the idea.
> These suggestions are possible with impr gen or simple ruleset code
> additions, and can be adjusted easily through rulesets. The suggested
> change to unit cost, on the other hand, is a very complex, completely
> artificial and rather restrictive mechanic.

I agree on the "completely artificial".

Simple calculation:

 Build a new city gives you about 4 resources for the center and 3 for
 the first person. Building it costs you 40 shield+20 food=60

 If you don't build the settler you may also get 3 resources per turn
 for the person staying at home.

 So building the settler will have a net profit of 4 resources by an
 investment of 60 resources and a delay of 5 turns (goto). So after
 60/4+5=20 turns the new city is a real advantage.

 So what you have to do is to make the person which stays home produce
 more than the 4 extra resources = 5 extra resources. So we search for
 a building which:
  - in the early game
  - increases the output of all resources by more than 130%
 The cost of the building may be higher than a settler because it is
 used longer (like any building).

So just doubling (to +100%) the science output of the library doesn't
make it.

 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After
  unzipping, these files can be viewed in any text editor, including
  all versions of Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer."

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]