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... ~Daniel _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
