<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
"Peter Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
>On 3/18/07, (Eddie_Anderson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
>> "Get rid of the per tile penalties for Despotism and Anarchy."
>Isn't this penalty already configurable in the ruleset so you can
>experiment with it?
>production_trade_penalty = 2, 0
>production_shield_penalty = 2, 0
>production_food_penalty = 2, 0
I wasn't aware of that (or I'd forgotten it). That's good
news. That means that practically all of these changes can be
implemented via ruleset changes (rather than code changes).
>> 1) Restore Whales tiles back to 2-2-3 (Food-Shields-Trade).
>> AIUI part of why a Whales tile (at 2-2-3) was disproportionately
>> valuable was because most of its production "flew under the
>> radar" of Despotism's per tile penalties. But with the per tile
>> penalties removed, other special tiles would be more competitive
>> with the Whales tile's original values.
>The whale competed mostly with the fish, people were complaining about
>getting fish instead of whale.
That makes sense too. I wonder if those complaints would have
been less frequent if fish tiles gave 3-0-2 instead of 2-0-2?
>> 2) Make Anarchy significantly more wasteful than Despotism.
>> Either make Anarchy's waste greater or Despotism's less. IIRC,
>> as it is now, there is little difference between them. IMO that
>> seems counterintuitive.
>The problem here is that if you do that, the city might not be able to
>maintain its units, even early in the game. Also anarchy should never
>last long anyway, unless you are a democracy collapsing every 2nd turn
I'm having trouble calculating how waste would be higher than
what we have now. Do you have an example in mind?
Here's how I figure it: As it is now, Despotism (or Anarchy)
has a per tile penalty, a base waste percentage, and a waste-by-
distance percentage (for non-capital cities). Combine those and in
some cases, the penalty exceeds 67%. In such cases, 6 shields are
reduced to 1. That is discouragingly inefficient.
I'm advocating a much lower percentage than that for Anarchy
(and still less for Despotism). There doesn't have to be a big
difference between those two; but IMO there *should* be a
difference. How about a difference of 10%? Say 30% waste for
Despotism and 40% for Anarchy?
That might be enough to make you think twice about starting a
revolution - but not so much that it would be prohibitively
expensive to do so. It would also restore some luster to the Statue
of Liberty WoW. :-)
>> 3) Remove the free food and free shield for city centers.
>It is a bit confusing yes. I always thought about the +1 food as 2
>free turns of irrigation, but that is not how it works. I also felt
>irritated about settling on grass+resource.
I agree. And it's the asymmetry that is bad, IMO. Buffalo gets
nothing, Oasis gets nothing, Pheasant gets nothing; yet somehow
people can find food on a gold mountain. :-)
>One problem is you might
>end up with cities with no production at all.
Hopefully not for long. But IMO, that is where the game is -
pick an appropriate city site from (and strategy for) the land that
is near your starting position.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a city that started out by working a
spice and a fruit tile. After 4 turns, I'd have another citizen to
put on a forest tile. Plus the city would continue to grow and I'd
have another citizen 8 turns later.
>There always will be newbie traps and Im not sure whether it is a good
>idea to remove complexity from the game. After all, you want some
Depending on how we define "traps", I agree. The direction that
I'd like to Freeciv go in is this: transparency in its rules. Let
Freeciv's complexity come from the choices of strategy and tactics
that it presents (not in remembering the side effects of its rules).
Freeciv-dev mailing list