On 9/11/07, Per I. Mathisen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Daniel Markstedt wrote:
> > * Streamline the tech tree! I'm looking at the Civ1 version and it's
> > gorgeous - so easy on the eyes compared to the tangled mess that is
> > the Civ2/default one. Less techs means quicker advancement and
> > speedier game. Some parts are obviously redundant, like the
> > Polytheism-Monotheism-Theology branch that seems quite detached from
> > the rest. I'd also like to cut down on some of the incrementally
> > improved unit types, like Catapult-Cannon-Artillery-Howitzer (in
> > Korean there's not even a clear linguistic distinction between Cannon
> > and Artillery!)
> It could use a clean up. But you should see Warzone2100's tech tree ;)

Some techs that could be easily merged:

* Combined Arms & Amphibious Warfare
* Tactics & Leadership
* Automobile & Mobile Warfare

> > * Put a stricter soft cap of the number of cities!
> This one is really hard. A start would be to make cities easier to manage.
> The city screen has way too many options and tabs. And if capitalization
> didn't suck so much, it might be a nice alternative to limiting the number
> of cities; they would be there, just would not do much.

You mean like limiting the number of cities that has the ability to
actually build something? It sound a bit like Civ3's "solution" to
smallpox: giving most cities crippling waste&corruption. Problem is,
it was neither fun nor user-friendly, leaving players wondering why
cities with equal natural resources could have such radically
different output.

Hm, maybe building higher-level stuff could require a limited 'small
wonder' to be build first in a city. That would make it easy for
players to decide where to put their production centers...


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to