|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Well, for my part, I still cling to my original "compromise" position! i.e., though I agree that rail (and roads) should increase commerce, food and production (or reduce corruption), I think it should NOT be based on the number of roads/rail you have, but on the number of cities you have connected up to the Capital by your road/rail network. Perhaps +1 per 8 cities for roads, and +1 per 5 cities for rail! This, I believe would have two important effects:
1) It would significantly reduce railway sprawl, as now you would only need to build a single RR connecting your city to the capital (this connection would not have to be direct, but could be via other cities), plus another one as back-up (just in case one gets pillaged  )
2) It would add another reason why you should protect your capital!! Not only do you now have to deal with increased corruption, but all your outlying cities lose productivity and food as everyone starts looking out for themselves!
Anyway, that's just my views, feel free to diss them if you like  .
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker. |
I think this is a great idea, and I'll take it one step further. I think that RR's should have a maintainance cost. This cost should be balanced with the benefits so that it is cost effective to have one, or even two connections per city, but anything more costs more than the trade bonus is worth. This would force players to think strategically about RR placement.
|
04-10-2002 19:34
|