Re: [Human-beings-discuss] preliminary rules

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

dams <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> >         Cities
> > 
> > The cities are the heart of the game. Each civ is organized with
> > a capital city and a (low) number of annex cities.
> 
> How do you maintain the number at "low" ? imho it should not be arbitrary
> limited, but the map or the way to build a cuty should obloge the number of
> city to be low

Yes, sort of. This doesn't frighten me. For example the cultural
influence can be so important that it prevents from building too
much cities. But anyway I think we'll see, maybe limiting the
number of cities will not be so good. This isn't a big deal.
 
> btw, I think of something : we should be able to transport some goods, and 
> some
> others not. That means that one city could have 500 tons of wood, but another
> only 2. wood could be transportable, so you could organize wood transport to
> bring wood to the second city. This would oblige to have transporter, spend
> fuel, and will offer a opportunity to your enemy to destroy your convoy. Some

No, there can't be convoys: the game must be thought, like
civilization, as if you were doing "important/major"
decisions/actions only; in another mail I've said that if we
want to play 3-5 hours the 4000BC->2000AD period of time, each 3
seconds of player time passes one year.

The road connections and goods transportation will not be
visible. You need to have a road connection, and the civ will be
considered as running the convoys itself.

Of course can do something similar to "destroy convoys" by
destroying a piece of road.

> other good would be more or less easily transportable, like electricity. some
> good should be non transportable (I have no example :). I think the goos 
> should
> be limited to the city that exploit the mine, gisement, forest... except maybe

I don't want to limit mining and forest goods to the city nearby
the goods are collected. It's not very interesting and not very
realistic.

Though, your suggestion makes me thing of adding another rule to
do a similar thing: the goods might be made "less efficient" as
long as the road connection gets longer; e.g. a city which is
very far away from steel mine and uses much steel will be
problematic for the civ since a part of the steel produced will
be considered "lost" in transportation (actually not lost, but
it's to simulate the cost of tranportation). And this effect must
be lowered when the civ discovers mass transport, automobile,
etc.

Good idea :).

> the science (or maybe if the city is not enough visited by people from other
> cities (merchants, army, etc..) and it has no science facility, then its
> science drops down?)

Hum I don't like too much the idea, and it won't be merchant
units I think :).

[...]

> army men can be counted as normal population in the castle (city for us) and
> can then be normal people to let the population grow. If you send the 
> militaans
> to war, they are not counted in the city population.

I've thought of something similar (I describe the impact on
fecondity before Democracy, to create military units), but I
don't have a real definitive idea on that.


Thanks for answering my long message! :-)

-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/