[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goals

[Anecdoter@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 1/3/00 11:56:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:18:51AM -0500, Anecdoter@xxxxxxx wrote:
>  >     Global extinction - pollution and/or nuclear warefare has destroyed 
> all 
>  > life on the entire planet.  Obviously, this is the worst possible ending.
>  
>   If no player has any units or cities  isn't too hard to check.
>   However, currently pollution doesn't kill units or cities except in
>  very indirect ways.  And since it only halves production of polluted
>  squares, this would be a very long, slow starvation if it were even
>  possible.
>   Nuclear weapons also only remove 1/2 the population of cities they
>  hit.  The current code doesn't destroy size 1 cities.  Ocean squares are
>  immune from pollution, as well.  So all existing cities would continue to
>  exist, and all coastal cities would flourish in general.
>  
    What if a requirement for this ending would be that half of all land 
squares would be polluted. I know this would not happen much and therefore 
this ending would not occure very often.  However, in games where the players 
go "nuke crazy" and just start lobing missiles at each other, this ending 
would be very realistic and very probably to occur.   This ending would be a 
"punishment" for using an excessive amount of nukes.

>  >     Economic victory - the civilization that controls over ninety 
percent 
> of 
>  > the planet's GDP is declared the ruler of the planet.  This ending 
should 
>  > only be available after industrialization is discovered.   To achieve 
this 
> 
>  > ending, a player would need to focus on developing his or her cities.
>  
>   I'm very sure that this is similar to the "kill everyone" victory.

    The end result is very much the same.  However, the means are differnt.  
Instead of focusing on the guns, the player would be focusing on the butter.  
By developing an efficent, ultra-productive economy, the player wages a 
different kind of war, one without bombs or bullets.   Different players are 
challenged in different ways and have different preferences on how they would 
like to achieve victory; I believe we should accomdate that (to a plausible 
extent).  Another possible ending would be a scientific victory.
>   
>  >     1984 Ending -  Just like in George Orwell's book, the world is 
divided 
> 
>  > into several super nations that are never able to achieve a victory 
> against 
>  > one another.  With nuclear weapons armed and subs skimming through the 
> ocean, 
>  > the final outcome of the game is three paranoid men hovering above red 
>  > buttons, waiting for the slightest provacation.   This ending would be 
the 
> 
>  > trickiest to implement - my best guess would be that the following 
> conditions 
>  > would be needed to be met:  the total number of nukes on the planet 
would 
> be 
>  > enough to cause a global extinction ending; no cities could be invaded 
for 
> 
>  > the past fifty or one hundred turns.  
>  
>   That'll almost never happen.

    Perhaps not, but since these endings are only to supplement the conquest 
and interstellar flight endings, it might be worth considering.   It is 
conceivable that three or four more or less equally skilled players could 
hold each other at bay for fifty turns.  As was pointed out to me by 
rp@xxxxxxxxxx, this ending might come in handy during tournaments.
>  
>  >     Scientific challenges - An asteroid is about to hit the planet, or 
the 
> 
>  > core is about to explode.  The civilizations must use their tech points 
to 
> 
>  > research a solution.  If they fail, game over.   This ending should only 
> be 
>  > possible very late in the game, when the civs are advanced enough to 
cope 
>  > with it.  This is very similar to the "stars going supernova" aspect of 
> the 
>  > original Master of Orion.
>  
>   It doesn't fit thematically.  Asteroids might, but novas don't.

    The novas were just in reference to Master of Orion, which I used as an 
example.   Scientific challenges could be global warming, or a worldwide 
epidemic - something that would threaten all life on the planet.  Again, this 
ending could be contingent upon how far the game has progressed (in turn 
numbers).  I admit that it would be grossly unfair to unleash this during the 
first two hundred turns of game play.
>  
>  >     Global Peace - The game ends in perfect harmony.  This could only be 
>  > achieved if there are no conflicts for five hundred consecutive turns.
>  
>   Most games don't last 500 turns.  Do the math.  You'd have to make
>  this much closer to 50 or 100 turns.  This has promise, though.  You'd have
>  to have at least another requirement, though to make sure that large maps
>  with only 3 civs actually had time to contact each other before the peace
>  was invoked.
>   575 turns is the "standard" game length as currently coded.  If
>  someone researches space technology early enough, that could extend this.

    I see your point.  Like you suggest, the requirement could be fifty to 
hundred turns.   I also like your contigency of the three civs having to meet 
each other.   As was suggested to me before, one requirement could be each 
civ would need an embassy in every other civ.

>  
>  >     Revolution -  Distraught and bitter at their treatment, citizens 
> around 
>  > the globe rise up against all the established power to form a new world 
>  > order.   This would happen if every civ had an extremely low happiness/
> morale 
>  > rating.
>  
>   This could be worked into Civil War.  We already have code to add a
>  new Civilization/leader.  You don't describe what would be a low happiness
>  rating, given that you still have to maintain relatively happy people to
>  prevent Civil Disorder as it is.

    I think that for this ending to occur, each civiliation on the planet 
would need to have half their cities to be undergoing civil disorder.  Once 
the requirement is reached then all players would be shown a screen that 
would basically state: "The people have risen to form a new global governemtn 
better suited to their needs.  Your government has been overthrown and you 
have been beheaded."
    Of course, this would another rare ending - one that would only occur in 
games where all the players are relatively inexperienced.   This ending would 
be a lesson to players to pay more attention to the happiness of their 
players.
>  
>  >     Barbarian Horde - weakened by disasters and/or war, the players are 
> faced 
>  > with a raging horde of heavily armed barbarians.  This ending should 
only 
> be 
>  > possible after the following conditions have been met:  1). after year 
> 1500 
>  > 2.)major disaster or conflicts for fifty consecutive turns 3.)25% of map 
> is 
>  > uninhabited.
>  
>   Barbarian assault level is chosen at the start of the game.  We
>  should respect that.

    What if we make the possible endings server options?  Each possible 
ending would be an option.  That way players could pick what endings they 
would like.  This would make the game more customizable and some of these 
endings may interest players.   

Steve