Follow-up Comment #7, patch #1936 (project freeciv): Just to add a little more on the trade idea: A well balanced game would treat gold(trade) upkeep very similar to shield upkeep. As the game stands it is not hard to have cities produce massive numbers of shields but very little trade. What limits those "industrial" cities from making infinite military units is the unhappy citizens.
Using trade really is no different, a unit's home city has to pay for it in gold and in citizen moral. Because each city has a set amount of trade resources; no one city can be the "home" city to an infinite unit count. Plus remember cities have to use gold to pay for their improvements as well. Paying for those probably should happen before paying for military units (not real sure on this). >From a player standpoint a limit on unitcount based on trade makes more intuitive sense then a limit based on how many people the city has. You have to pay for these units, richer cities are going to be able to afford more then poorer cities. Even if the units were built("trained") in an "industrial/shield" city then based at a rich city; there still is a natural constraint based on city resources. Building things at a factory and using the output to defend a nation's wealth has been done by nations all throughout history. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/patch/?1936> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev