I never play Fund/Comm, but I am aware of most of their strengths/weaknesses. I imagine multiplayer Civ players would best know whether limiting WLTYYYD would make those other governments too powerful.

If it would, what would be the best way to help rebalance? Lower the number of free support units? Increase comm distance from palace?

I must be a little inexperienced at civ2...

Say who??

However, i would lover the fundy free troops to 5
make units bribeable in Democracy and cities
increase corruption in both demo and commie
cut the science rate of fundy to 25%
eliminate WLTKD in rep and demo for the sole purpose of increasing population growth....

that all said though, i like civ the way it is

Hey, you'd have to put a serious cap on luxuries in order to prevent what I think you are (hypothetically) asking about preventing. I just grew a size 20 city to size 32 at only a 20% luxury rate.

Of course, before this example gets used as ammunition for a "crutch" arguement, let me say it was OCC. I don't think you can consistently plan on growing all cities this rapidly at that luxury rate.

Maybe the answer is to prohibit this type of growth as a republic (unless you have 100% happy people). Criteria for growth under democracy could be the same, or could shift to, say, 75% happy people.

Maybe they could add an "Ultra-capitalist" government that would be available later in the game where you could grow at 50% happy people.

quote: <font size=1>Originally posted by vik on 05-20-2000 11:40 PM</font> Careful you must be when this question you do ask, Hmmmm?

Mmmm, yes, careful I must be, or destroy I will, all for which I have fought, and suffered...

quote: Hey, you'd have to put a serious cap on luxuries in order to prevent what I think you are (hypothetically) asking about preventing. I just grew a size 20 city to size 32 at only a 20% luxury rate.

I want to reduce it as a quick fix. 40% should be a good hard cap. You can get WLTYYD with that, but new small cities in a large civ (25+ cities) wont without a ton of improvements.

quote: Of course, before this example gets used as ammunition for a "crutch" arguement, let me say it was OCC. I don't think you can consistently plan on growing all cities this rapidly at that luxury rate.

20% barely keeps you out of disorder in a large Civ. Hell, new cities in my games start out with that REALLY pissed off black clad dude. And that's at 30%...

quote: Maybe the answer is to prohibit this type of growth as a republic (unless you have 100% happy people). Criteria for growth under democracy could be the same, or could shift to, say, 75% happy people.

I think that's the best way, to simply attach more conditions to WLTYYYD. No pollution, basic services must be available (market, library), no more than 2 troops outside the city. I think balances WLTYYYD best. But alas, cannot do that in Civ2...

Most people find WLTxD too tedious to arrange in the proper way. In OCC it's no big deal, easy to do. But in a large empire, only the very best players are able to do a growth-WLTxD worth the cost. I hadn't played Civ2 for some weeks, and in my game this weekend, my WLTxD attempt turned out to be a huge waste: only 2/3 of the cities celebrating, half of them either lacking harbours/irrigation or aquaducts after two round. WLTxD is not for the weaker players to use.
For most players, the demo/rep strength is in the insane trade. Add no-bribe, no-corruption to demo, and most people are satisfied. No need to cripple commie/fundie to even things out if WLTxD is disallowed.

Whatever. Personally, I feel that in late-stage WLTCD works best in communism. My cities are already maxed out anyway (or I lack harbour/aquaduct/irrigation), and I get a no-senate, no-corruption, almost-no-shield-support, vet-spy gov with FULL TRADE. Nice. Would you disallow that, too, or is it just the growth effect you're after?