forum.freeciv.org

Thanks Caedo for briefly explaining what I meant saying about overpowered.
For example, with huts, it is possible to gain almost unlimited number of free workers, if they are capturable, because captured unit inherit homing of capturer.

Maybe someone can help me here as to how Civ II handles unhomed units (i.e. is it the same as freeciv?). In any event the current behaviour is not Civ I compliant as I recall. In Civ I new units (e.g. found in a hut) will get to belong to the nearest city (if yours? - but will be unhomed if nearest is not yours.) This rule could be extended to capture.

Think outside the box - give every settler a city name.

even just for a handful of units - might imbalance things.

Caedo: From what I understand in your post "...might imbalance things." in a positive way. less units = more money in the coffers, right?
As you said "homeless units pay no upkeep." Is this BAD? To me, this unbalance is positive.
So start sending me ALL your homeless units. Imagine: ALL units, and I mean ALL, are free... you make money and spend it in Science, Buildings, Wonders etc.

Arbogast wrote:

even just for a handful of units - might imbalance things.

Caedo: From what I understand in your post "...might imbalance things." in a positive way. less units = more money in the coffers, right?
As you said "homeless units pay no upkeep." Is this BAD? To me, this unbalance is positive.
So start sending me ALL your homeless units. Imagine: ALL units, and I mean ALL, are free... you make money and spend it in Science, Buildings, Wonders etc.

Exactly. And other players, that don't have as many homeless units (for one reason or another), are at a serious disadvantage compared to you.

Sorry by not answering earlier...
So the solution would be that everbody starts with the same amount of units, in fact, they don't have to be exactly the same type, as long as they amount to the same quantity.