[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Two suggestions/ideas for FreeCiv

[andrew_mcguinness@xxxxxxxxxxx]

On 30 May, Jonathan Day wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>    I'd like to propose two suggestions for
> FreeCiv. They're not related, but it saves space to just send the
> one e-mail. :) Apologies if any of these have been suggested before.
>    Firstly, I'd like to suggest Standing Orders. A "Standing Order" 
> is an instruction for a specific unit which will be carried out IF
> the conditions for the order are met, AND the unit has performed no
> action for that turn. A unit may have more than one Standing Order. 
> In which case, the first Standing Order in which the conditions are
> met would be used.
>    One example may be for an explorer to have four Standing Orders:

...

Greater automation is good, but having players sitting writing programs
in a game is not the best way.  Can you set a unit to "Goto" a location
which is off your map?  That might be a way of directing exploration in
a particular direction.

> 
>    The second suggestion is for Regional Government. Regional Government is 
> where a second player (or AI) takes control of one specific city. The 
> principle player can allot a certain budget to that city, but has no control 
> of any operations within it. They do, however, retain full control over any 
> units that move out of the city.
>    The Regional Government can use it's budget and any non-monetary resources 
> the city has to do construction, keep people happy, etc. It controls all 
> units inside the city, but loses that control once the unit leaves. For 
> traders, that means that the Regional Government can choose the comodity to 
> trade, and the original goal of the trader, but it is left to the principle 
> player as to whether the unit actually goes there or not.
>    Regional Government is also completely responsible for the defence of the 
> city.
>    In terms of playability, this allows a player to optionally delegate 
> responsibility for cities, as it can get very easy to construct far more 
> cities than the player can keep track of.
>    In terms of realism, empires invariably end up delegating control to 
> regional governers, as it is impractical for an Emperor to micro-manage every 
> detail of every city in every country under their influence.
>    This begs the question of why anybody would want to play a Regional 
> Governer, when they can play a Warlord or Emperor. I can give two possible 
> answers to that.
>    First, a Regional Governer is unlikely to be appointed at the start of a 
> game. Therefore, this would give people who want to see what FreeCiv is about 
> (hands-on), but don't have the time to play a full game, the opportunity to 
> have it both ways.
>    Secondly, it would be possible to extend the Regional Government concept, 
> to allow a city to rebel and go under the total control of the Governer. This 
> would allow a Governer to change status and become a Ruler. This answer would 
> allow a player experience in both roles, and would increase the importance of 
> a Ruler keeping cities (and Governers) happy. (It would also increase 
> paranoia levels, which is both fun and realistic!)
> 
>    Hope this is of interest,
> 

This is a tall order.  I'm not sure how useful it would be for human
players, but I've been thinking it could be a good way of organising a
new AI.  I've got two or three more urgent project than taking on a big
freeciv development though :-(

Andrew McGuinness