Re: [Human-beings-discuss] preliminary rules

[dams]

Guillaume Cottenceau <address@hidden> writes:


[...]

>  
> > 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.

hmm, well ok, as you like it, but I don't see how you manage to have a detail
city construction (à la sim city) and a generic, not detailed view/action on
other topic, with a year each 3 sec.

I would suggest not to begin at 4000BC, but that's not my decision, the game
would not be the same.

> 
> 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.

ok

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

allright, as you like it :)

> 
> > 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.

well, it's realistic :) that's how it is IRL :) but again, you're the boss

> 
> 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 :).

ok thanks, I agree with that

> 
> > 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 :).

ok :)