2009/9/10 John Wilson <mt.kine...@gmail.com>:
> Maybe new cities shouldn't take away any territory within the city
> radius, but still be free to take territory that is out of the radius.

> I would not like to see the 2.2 system reverted into something more like
> 2.1. I think that the borders in 2.2 should stay how they are, except that
> they are given more strength to stay under someone's control. Maybe using
> the proximity to a city, the cities size, and how long the border has been
> there. The new city should be able to take some territory that is unused
> (outside city radius), but not if it is too close, too old, etc...And maybe
> once the new city overcomes those limits, it could take the territory (like
> a size 8 city that has had its border out 10 tiles for 50 turns, a size 1
> city should not take half of that territory if it builds the city on the
> border, but 50 turns later, when the first city is still size 8 and the
> second one is size 18, the second one shouldn't still be right against the
> border.) The more predictable this system is, the better, IMHO.

Thank you for very helpful comments and suggestions. I have now
created (and partly committed) patches inspired by your ideas.

With already committed patch #1305 and new patch #1310 system would be
like this (from highest priority to lowest):

1) Border source tile is always owned by border source (city or fortress)
2) Tiles within city radius that city has once claimed can never be
claimed by another border source
3) Tile is claimed by the border source that has most strength at the
tile. Strength depends on city size (fortress has strength 1, cities
have strength size+2) and distance from source
4) If two sources have equal strength, current owner keeps the tile

 Border system uses real distance, not the number of moves unit needs
to travel between tiles nor manhattan distance.

 Comments are very much welcome. If there is no feedback I will assume
this system suitable for 2.2.

 - ML

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to