LT13 - bigger tradesize
Wed, 07/16/2008 - 13:23 — mmm
Proposition:
set notradesize=3
set fulltradesize=9
Currentl settings:
notradesize=0
fulltradesize=1
Why? This will slow down the game at the start, and not make the game a race to howitzers.
Type:
/help notradesize
/help fulltradesize
to find out what these settings are/do.
The result of this setting will be that small cities will regain some advantage to the large cities that overpowered and made the past LT's pointless..
Should we change notradesize/fulltradesize settings to 3/9?
yes
80% (8 votes)
no
20% (2 votes)
Total voters: 10
Comments
I would try it. Although
I would try it. Although it's a risk that game will be slooooow and booooring, but ... maybe it won't?
foodbox=100?
I will vote against this.
This game is going to last forever with fulltrade so high..
it will be a one sided game either way probably..
there are rules from LTXIII
there are rules from LTXIII + votings. Rules XIII means almost complete default from single player FC:)
Mmm, notice that under the
Mmm, notice that under the new rules, foodbox=100.
Your proposed idea claims that only cities of size 4+ will have trade. It will take a long long time to research Alphabet...
From 0/1 to 3/9 is a bit
From 0/1 to 3/9 is a bit draconian in my opinion. Does it really need to be that big a step?
And isn't setting a high rapturedelay an existing and better solution than to cripple trade outcome?
And what about reducing the maximum amount of trade routes per city?
--
eminentia omnia vincit
From 0/1 to 3/9 is a bit
From 0/1 to 3/9 is a bit draconian in my opinion.
so vote no
Does it really need to be that big a step?
If you want smaller step, make own poll. But please make "ranking poll", then I will be able to enable write-in, and every voter will be able to propose it's own variant.
And what about reducing the maximum amount of trade routes per city?
1. how?
2. if (defined(how?)) make_poll();
Heh, finally I've
Heh, finally I've confidenced mmm it's not as good idea but you guys voted yes :(