[Freeciv-Dev] Re: wonder balance (was: Blitzkrieg patch)

[Reed Meyer <rdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Reinier Post wrote:
> The Pyramids are rarely built by experienced players, because
> 
>   - early on, it's cheaper to double your number of cities instead!
>     the Pyramids cost 200 = 5 settlers = 5 cities; more, actually,
>     since shields will sit idle until the last of the 200 has been spent
>   - later, there is usually a more interesting wonder to target

Well, there you go!  There's another example of how variety in
freeciv/Civ II makes it special.  (I mean, if we didn't have Wonders, 
we wouldn't have this interesting choice to make.)  Also, a very good
example of how a Wonder which one player considers a "must have" is
considered insignificant by another.  (Probably the same dichotomy exists
for Magellan's, Blitzkrieg, ... ?  I don't consider Magellan's "must have",
for example.)
     (I understand your argument, but I personally still feel that the
Pyramids are too important to pass up.  Also, I guess my gaming style is
slightly different, as I definitely don't sacrifice expanding early for
building the Pyramids.)

> Very true, but balance is very important.  If having a particular wonder
> decides the game, the wonder might as well be called End of Game.
> (Come to think of it, an Apocalypse wonder?)

Hehe, yeah, I also was thinking about an "End of Game" wonder as I was
writing the earlier post.  Agreed that balance (that is to say, GAME
balance) is paramount.

> >      (3) Perhaps most importantly, Wonders help speed up game play.
> > you have a "stalemate" between several nations all of approximately equal
> > power, it could take a long time before a clear winner is determined (let
> > alone someone truly "winning" the game by conquering the world).  In this
> > sense, one nation whose power rapidly accelerates is a GOOD thing.  That
> > nation builds most of the Wonders, and its power accelerates even more.
> > The game is over faster.
> 
> This is good unless you have met the same opponent in your 10 previous games.

Solution: don't play the same opponent 10 games straight. :-)

> Indeed ...  The goal, I think, is to have a game in which many
> different ways to achieve victory are possible, in which players can
> surprise their opponents by their tactics.

That's right.  I think, with the tremendous variety in freeciv, that that
goal can be achieved, and quite impressively.  But it does require very
careful attention to game balance.

> I agree, if the best plan isn't always the same in any game.

Right.  (See above.)

> > [...]  The question then becomes what is the working
> > definition of "isn't INCREDIBLY powerful".  I would say "anything that
> > doesn't instantly determine the fate of the game within the next few
> > turns".  In other words, anything that doesn't make the player an "instant
> > winner" (to use a phrase from the lottery/sweepstakes world).
> 
> I ask for a little more: anything that doesn't make the most powerful
> player an instant winner if he decides to pursue it.

Well, this is kind of implied in the definition above, but I see now that
the definition wasn't written carefully enough.  One can imagine
situations where a Wonder *IS* enough to "be the straw that broke the
camel's back", as it were.  If one player is ALREADY quite powerful,
developing ONE more Wonder might be enough to "push the game over the
edge" and essentially guarantee victory.  But the player ALREADY got to
that point (got quite powerful) due to a PREVIOUS succession of wise
choices, perhaps including several (NOT just one) Wonders.  See what I
mean?  To go strictly by your definition, then yes, I would have to
concede that there are Wonders which could make an already-powerful player
an instant winner.  But at the SAME token, ANY good decision by the
powerful player, not JUST building a Wonder, could be enough to finally
guarantee victory -- perhaps something as mundane as building one military
unit.  SOONER OR LATER, there's going to be a situation where the most
powerful player is going to win, no matter what -- at that point, no
amount of strategy or luck is going to save the other players.  I am not
talking about such situations when I define something as being "incredibly
powerful" or not.  Rather, I'm talking more about situations where all the
players are more-or-less equal in power prior to one player developing the
Wonder in question.

> > If the chance
> > of winning went from 50% to 51% or 52%, which is how I would characterize
> > even the best actual Wonders in the game, then it's no big deal.
> 
> Now that I've read this a couple of times, I realise my confusion:
> do you mean 50% chance of winning, or an equal chance for all players?

Sorry about the confusion.  I mean "equal chance for all players".  In
other words, the examples I was using assumed two players (so, of course,
an equal chance means 50%).
 
> I would put the estimate for the best wonders at 10-30%, and they are
> often built by a player who has a 50% percent chance of winning already.
> But this depends on the map size.  On smaller maps wonders are much less
> important.  A greater land mass also helps to balance the wonders, because
> tactics become much more important.

That's interesting.  That would be like saying there's an optimum map size
at which the importance of Wonders is maximized.

> > Do you think that if Nation A's boats suddenly got to move 1 or 2 extra 
> > tiles
> > per turn, its chance of winning would climb to anywhere near 100%?
> 
> Yes, definitely, if the game is still in the expansion stage.

But, the expansion stage is usually near completion by the time Magellan's
is built, right?  I guess, then, a question is whether the LIGHTHOUSE (as
opposed to Magellan's!) is an incredibly powerful Wonder.

(FOR SURE, I can't recall ANY correlation between the Lighthouse and who's
going to end up winning the game.  I personally consider the Lighthouse
one of the most pathetic Wonders; I only consider building it to keep
triremes from sinking, if I'm not within 3 tiles of another continent.)

Cheers,
---Reed Meyer