[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Glaciars

[Jason Todd <idjason@xxxxxxxx>]

 Actually, as the guy who first championed glaciars, I think I
now agree that they should be left out. Unless they could randomly
grow out of any mountain, but that would be way more unrealistic.

Mike Jing wrote:
> 
> 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