Accounts e-mail HP

citymindist

citymindist

Poll ended at Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:39 pm

citymindist=2
5
71%
citymindist=5
2
29%
 
Total votes : 7

citymindist

Postby corsaro » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:39 pm

I propose to set citymindist=5. Strangely, current setting is citymindist=2, which would produce a horrible smallpox game.
corsaro
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:29 pm

Re: citymindist

Postby monamipierrot » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:55 pm

corsaro wrote:I propose to set citymindist=5. Strangely, current setting is citymindist=2, which would produce a horrible smallpox game.

About the risk of smallpoxing (I hate smallpoxing at least as much as servers and clients hate it), it will probably not happen for a couple of reasons:
1 - in this Civ2Civ3 ruleset, the granary growing mechanism of the cities is not more pseudo-exponential (or was it pseudo-geometrical? I'm not a mathematician), but a more linear one, so you would want to let your cities grow faster and big, instead of spamming the world with useless tiny villages.
2 - also, the price of settlers is of 2 citizens, so every time you found a city you're losing 2 citizens in another one.

Even like this, I would keep citymindist=2 because I hate all patches that try to solve a problem beginning from the end. We should always let the player be free to do what he wants, while ENCOURAGING him to behave in some way. Still one may want to build a city close to another one for a strategical reason, while knowing the economical drawbacks of the operation.
Try to solve problems with patches (citymindist IS a patch) is like trying to lower the fever of a patient by putting him in a freezer cell.

Anyway, in GT01 which had citymindist=2 (WITHOUT the mentioned mods), wild smallpoxing didn't take place (if I can remember well, el_perdedor had lots of cities but I wouldn't regard him as a SMALLPOXER)

Then, if the mentioned mods in the growing system will not work enough in discouraging smallpox, we may try a different or a more radical one.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: citymindist

Postby Corbeau » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:07 pm

Actually, I'd be in favour of citymindist=1. As someone already mentioned, it allows a lot of creativity and more options, such as canals for ships built across narrow patches of land. There are enough minuses for it to discourage a wild use (as already mentioned).

So I vote citymindist=1.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: citymindist

Postby Davide » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:19 pm

Poll closes for citymindist = 2 (default).

@ Corbeau: vote acknowledged :p
User avatar
Davide
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:34 am

Re: citymindist

Postby monamipierrot » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:59 pm

Corbeau wrote:Actually, I'd be in favour of citymindist=1. As someone already mentioned, it allows a lot of creativity and more options, such as canals for ships built across narrow patches of land. There are enough minuses for it to discourage a wild use (as already mentioned).

Maybe somebody (not me) could think that uses such as city channels or siege cities (this one I have to try it!) may be a issue on their own. The only issue I can think of is if you conquer some really shitty-placed enemy cities and want to let them die rebuilding another one in an adjacent tile.
As you would almost NEVER build a siege city for military reasons, or 2 cities next to each other for exploiting reasons, citymindist=2 is acceptable.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron