Re: empty treasury and negative income

On 2006-02-16, at 13.53, Jason Dorje Short wrote:

> Daniel Markstedt wrote:
>> What is effect of having an empty treasury and negative income at the=20=

>> same time?
>
> Buildings get sold.  This increases both income and treasury. With=20
> unit upkeeps I assume the unit would simply be disbanded if it can't=20=

> be paid for.
>
> There is a minor bug (part of PR#724 IIRC) in that upkeep is done=20
> city-by-city instead of player-by-player.  So it's possible that you=20=

> have a city with -5 income that gets calculated first and has to sell=20=

> a building, even though your other city with a +50 income could easily=20=

> pay for it.  Thus the order of city iteration matters.
>
> -jason
> =00
>

What happen when you run out of buildings and still have negative=20
income (theoretically)?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm calculating the impact of having=20
players pay upkeep for cities, as a way to limit expansion in the early=20=

game, and ultimately to benefit largepoxing. I don't want to see cities=20=

disbanding when the economy hit rock bottom though. Instead negative=20
income you can't pay for by other means, should turn into negative=20
science output instead, effectively halting research when you run out=20
of cash.

In practice, I'm imagining city upkeep as a variable of your=20
government; for example Despotism-4, Monarchy-2, the rest 1 or 0 (needs=20=

to be balanced of course.) To speed up the early game, the Palace could=20=

give an extra income of 6 or so under Despotism/Monarchy.

Thoughts?

-Daniel=