Re: [Freeciv-Dev] patch: cannot sabotage wonders

[Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 08:14:31AM -0500, Andrew E. Schulman wrote:
>> Ah ha... found it in the Civ2 manual.  Page 113: "Diplomats and Spies
>> never destroy Wonders of the World."
> 
> So what?  Why are we so slavishly devoted to the Civ1/Civ2 rules?

        Since nobody else has picked up this ball, I'll throw out some
reasonings.  Fundamentally, it comes down to what people, both internal
and external, expect of the project.

        People have been playing Microprose Rules for years.  This is what
they expect, and it's a good baseline to try and provide.  We can leverage
years of learning and provide an entertaining game.
        CivNet and Civ2Gold have provided a multi-player interpretation of
the rules, and we should consider their behavior as well when trying to
resolve conflicts.
        The flipside of this is that since Microprose Rules are what people
know, they're going to notice differences and bitch about the jerks who
"screwed it up".

        Now the web site doesn't truly bill this as a re-implementation of
Civ2.  So we aren't lying in our promotions if we change some of the rules.
But since we have the capability to have multiple civ styles, it is a Good
Thing(tm) to try to provide a compatible mode and a Freeciv-enhanced mode.
This is what I have advocated all along.
        The testing effort to confirm that we are staying close to the
Microprose behavior should cause people to question what the best behavior
for the system is.  That will provide some innovation.

        Having the open source base allows people to implement their own
scenario ideas -- the Mad Max scenario, where every nuclear weapon causes
units of Barbarian Biker Gangs to appear nearby -- or whatever else they
wish.  But the baseline should be and must be what Microprose has already
established.
        Getting into the "it's kind of like chess, but every third move the
bishop and knight swap board positions" is an amusing scenario idea, but it
doesn't reflect the intricate design work that has already gone before.

        The reasons that I joined this project cover a lot of bases.  I
have always wanted the inherently multiplayer nature of Civilization
brought to it's fullest expression.  This is what I beleive to be
Microprose's biggest failing.  I want to play against a challenging AI that
doesn't have to cheat.  That the Civ1 AI could randomly declare that it had
wonders annoyed me a lot.  I want to decrease the drudgery of managing
things.  Supportive AI that makes defensible decisions coherent with my own
strategy will help that.  Making the game less of a chore will allow more
people to devote the time to play, and they will enjoy that experience more.
I've spent literally thousands of hours playing Civilization in the last 5
years.  Literally months of my life.
        I want a truly cross-platform game, that can be played on my
Macintosh, my Linux system, or anything else that may be available.
Utilities that allow conversion of scenario files between any version of
Civ's save formats would be cool.

        But all this comes back to the fact that the people at Microprose
made a game which I have truly enjoyed through the years.  That's an
impressive feat.  It strongly implies that they have their act together.
The second implication in that chain is that this is worthy of emulation.

        My reasons may not be your reasons, but I think that there is a
very good compatibility argument to be made.

        This is quite a bit longer than I thought it was going to be when I
started writing it, so I'll go shut up now.  But I hope it's at least food
for thought.
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"When I was young, the sky was filled with stars.
 I watched them burn out one by one."  -Warren Zevon