On 28 January 2013 18:25, David Lowe <doctorjl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2013 Jan 27, at 5:38 PM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> Capturing cities with superior cultural influence
>> is the obvious solution, which many other games have also implemented,
>> but that wouldn't work well with our existing migration concept.
>         Personally i find migration of population units to be an interesting 
> idea, but unsatisfactory in execution.  It tends to force 'large pox' to an 
> extreme; before a city has been built up enough to attract foreigners it 
> begins to cannibalize neighboring friendly cities.  By the time it can bring 
> people across the border it faces a challenge in feeding so many mouths.  I 
> can go ahead and build the Supermarket, but what then?  After the enemy city 
> has disbanded it leaves a ruin on the border; founding a new city there is of 
> course useless.  If i had annexed the enemy city instead it would help to 
> push my border further out...

Yes, I think migration has fundamental design flaw in that there's
simply no way for new/small cities to defend themselves against it, so
it's impossible to found new cities near already well established
cities. I've tried to work around this in my own rulesets, but most of
the time I end just disabling migration.

 - ML

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to