[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Glaciars

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 Anecdoter@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Why does a game based on randomly generated maps have to be realistic? Each 
> map is its own unique world.  Just because our planet is between ice ages 
> does not mean all of the freeciv planets are as well.  Some planets could 
> be exiting an ice age, where as others would be beginning them.  If we were 
> to take points off for realism, we would have to throw the whiole freeciv 
> time scale out the window, because 1.)   no human being can live 9000 
> years, thus no human could rule for 9000 years 2.)   no human civilization 
> has been around for 9000 years.
The above argument is specious because:

1.)  Just because Freeciv uses randomly generated map doesn't mean the rules 
are random or arbitrary.  On the contrary, the game closely mirrors the 
historical development of human civilization during the past few thousand 
years and into the possible future.  Nearly every aspect of the game, 
especially all the rulesets, are grounded in reality.  This is no SMAC.  Not 
yet anyway.
2.)  However, 100% realism is not possible, or even desirable, because there 
is something called gameplay.  Too much realism makes a boring game, I think 
we can agree on that much.  Approximations and exceptions should be and 
indeed have been made to make the game playable and enjoyable, and they can 
be found at every level of the game, from the effects of various forms of 
government down to the movement points of various units.  All the rulesets 
are approximations of reality.
3.)  Although the rules are approximate, they are NOT arbitrary.  The trick 
is to make them as realistic as possible while keeping the game playable.  
Of course we have to take points off for (un)realism, because realism has 
always been an important aspect of the game.  Unless there is added benefit 
for gameplay, there is no point in sacrificing realism.
4.)  Specifically, randomly generated maps are used because a few realistic 
scenarios do not provide enough variety.  Furthermore, a realistic earth map 
is very unbalanced for different nations.  For this reason, different map 
generators are developed to allow a more "fair" game.  Nevertheless, the 
resulting world looks remarkably earth-like, especially on gen1, with large 
continents, small islands, mountains, rivers, deserts near the equator, 
icecaps on the poles, etc., etc.  Yes, "each map is its own unique world".  
But think how funny it is that they all look so much like the earth.  And 
they all have the same human species!  What's the chance of that?
5.)  The Immortal Ruler is arguably the biggest example of unrealism in the 
game.  Yeah, "no human being can live 9000 years".  But that's easy to fix.  
Just change the name of the ruler at appropriate points during the game, if 
you can accept that you may take on different roles (i.e. different rulers 
of the same nation at different times) during the course of the game.  No, 
do NOT rush out and try to implement this, you clever developers.  I am just 
trying to show that this is not a violation of realism at all.  It is just 
an exception/approximation made for the sake of gameplay.  Using it to argue 
against realism is simply not valid.
6.)  Yeah, "no human civilization has been around for 9000 years", but here 
we are extrapolating into the future, again in favor of gameplay because it 
is indeed possible for the game to continue beyond the year 2000 (the Y2K 
bug notwithstanding).  They even threw in a space race to make it more 
interesting, although space travel is not yet practical.  Again, it's the 
GAMEPLAY.
7.)  So, to beat the dead horse one more time: Yes, Virginia, realism has 
EVERYTHING to do with Freeciv despite the fact that  a.) it uses randomly 
generated maps  b.) it features immortals as rulers of civs  c.) it could 
run until Y5K  d.) etc.  Thank you very much.
> I was picturing a low possibilty for glaciers - maybe a 1% chance of
> happening per game, if and only if certain conditions would be met.  Of 
> course, it would also be a server option.  This way, players would not have 
> to worry about glaciers all the time.  On the rare occasion they did 
> appear, well then, they would be a new, unexpected problem for the players 
> to face. The players would have to deal with the changes cicumstances or be 
> destroyed - just like in real life ;->
Just like in real life?  What a concept!  I thought you didn't care too much 
about realism.
All kidding aside, I am sure you can now see that you are concerned about 
realism yourself as well.  Indeed, when I said the time scale was wrong, I 
meant the time period between ice ages are much longer than the length of 
civs in Freeciv, therefore the probability of an ice age happening during 
the life of a civ is very low (1% is probably close to reality).  Moreover, 
the movement of the glaciers is extremely slow in real life, so it would 
probably take longer than the entire length of a Freeciv game for the ice 
age to occur or recede.  That's why I said an ice age scenario is not very 
realistic.
But of course, we can accept an accelerated version of a "mini" ice age if 
it is interesting enough gameplay-wise.  As far as I can see, an ice age 
scenario is similar to global warming in that they are both global, but 
there are two important differences:
1.) global warming is a direct result of player action, i.e. industrial 
pollution, therefore it is possible to prevent it by reducing pollution, 
while ice age will be spontaneous and out of the payers' control.  You think 
you have heard enough cursing about barbarians, just imagine the frustration 
as glaciers bearing down on your cities and you can't do jack about them.
2.) as Greg Wooledge pointed out:"Glaciers would give an unfair advantage to 
players who happened to start closer to the equator", while global warming 
affect the whole map more or less equally.  This has the potential of 
unbalancing the game even more.
For the above reasons, I don't think glaciers will provide better gameplay.  
Plus they are unrealistic, therefore it is probably best to leave them out 
of the game and use the resources to implement other, more realistic aspect 
of natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes.  After all, 
they are much more common and more "fair" to the players.
But that's just me.

Mike

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com