Follow-up Comment #1, bug #23300 (project freeciv):
You are right.
This contradiction was caused by this patch #5763, that I made thinking of
balance more than context.
When I tested the old Tribal government without martial law, it was hard to
keep citizens happy, and I did not find it worth to use it compared to
Despotism.
I'd like that keeping citizens content was easier under Tribal than Despotism
(both for balance and context reasons), but maybe the martial law was not a
good choice.
My original idea when Tribal was created was to represent a more nomadic
culture, with increased movement rates, but it was proved a bad choice because
it encouraged early rush attacks.
I tried to reconvert it to an effective defense against such early attacks,
thanks to the veterancy bonus and the extra martial law, but I'm not sure that
it really fits the tribal lore.
I'd like to see players changing to Tribal when they are being attacked soon
in game, or when they find troubles to keep citizens content under Despotism.
I'm open to suggestions here. Maybe we could try to replace the martial law,
by an increased City_Unhappy_Size (some content citizens for free).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?23300>
_______________________________________________
Mensaje enviado vía/por Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
