Re: City utilization range
Peter Schaefer <[email protected]> Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:29:49 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.freeciv.general,gmane.comp.freedesktop.clipart |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The smallpox issue will not be cured unless economy would be reworked such that there are bonus buildings very early and such that a city requires certain buildings before giving more output. However, the question is whether it needs to get reworked. Most approaches to reworking it will result in longer games, which are unplayable to the majority of players. Also, early bonus buildings means that the empires of some players will expand even faster and make the game more lopsided. Currently I think that some buildings should be cheaper and I like the idea of a smithy as early bonus. Buildings will naturally increase the players desire to have bigger cities. There is a post on the forum#gameplay somewhere that echoes the idea. -peter the other On 16 Jul 2005 13:42:07 -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter Ehrlich <peter-VkndEW8ZexRR0G4FFNCX/[email protected]> writes: >=20 > > How about something that makes them _want_ to build cities far > > apart, for ex. something bad happens when the ratio of cities to > > city size gets to extreme. >=20 > Or, better, something good happens when a city has lots of tiles all > to itself. >=20 > -- > $;=3Dsub{$/};@;=3Dmap{my($a,$b)=3D($_,$;);$;=3Dsub{$a.$b->()}} > split//,"ten.thgirb\@badanoj$/ --";$\=3D$ ;-> ();print$/ >=20 >=20 >=20 >