[Freeciv-Dev] Re: cheating
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
The current formula already took this into account. It may benifit from
some fine tuning, but the basic idea works very well. The most important
effect of the way tech cost is calculated is that it gives a player who is
behind in science a chance to catch up, or at least not to fall too far
behind, because it costs less to research new techs when you are behind.
This may seem illogical at first glance, but I think it makes perfect sense
Another feature of Civ2 is that all new techs may not be always available at
any time, although they are immediately reachable in the tech tree, thus
forcing you to research techs that are not directly in line with your
research goal. This means you can't just totally ignore one part of the
tech tree and concentrate exclusively on another particular branch. Some
people may not like this, but I think this also serves to balance the game,
for obvious reasons.
The reason why people do not build libraries, etc. is that it is much easier
to simply build more cities than to develop them fully. To fix this, you
have to make it harder to expand. In Civ2, this is done by increasing
unhappiness as the size of your civ grow. Freeciv has partly implemented
this, but not nearly as resitricting. The more I play Civ2, the more I
think it was done right. But that's just me.
From: Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Jed Davis <jldavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: cheating
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:52:14 -0600
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 06:29:01PM -0500, Jed Davis wrote:
> Gerhard Killesreiter <killesreiter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Paul Dean <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > This is another point I've thought about - the way that the optimal
> > > game-playing style implies that no libraries, temples etc are ever
> > > built. There should be more incentive to build them, but I have no
> > > suggestions for how we might go about this.
> > Hmm, why not implement the following:
> > After a number of researched advances, your research speed will sink
> > if you have no libraries.
> > I think this is reasonable: Try to imagine doing research of any kind
> > without a library.
> Or, more generally, have the benefit provided by libraries and
> universities (but probably still leave university as 2x library), as
> well as the amount of science required, change with the advance being
> researched. This way the more "advanced" techs, or those that seem
> more worthy of library-ish research, can take longer without the
> city-improvements, and also the "harder" advances can take more time
> than the "easier" ones. I think some of the newer paycivs (CtP?) have
> varying science "costs" for advances, for what it's worth.
> --Jed, who barely has time to write this e-mail, let alone try coding
> such a thing...
It wouldn't be hard at all, really.
The equation that we use, which has some basis in the observed
behavior of CivII, is simple. The cost of a new technology is a constant
times the number of techs already known. The cost doubles after year 0.
CivII seemed slightly more complex -- like not counting the initial
random 0-4 techs known as part of the basis for new tech cost. But
otherwise, it just used 6 as the constant at Chieftain level, 8 at Warlord,
10 at Prince, and so on.
It wouldn't be hard at all to add in a second factor. What this
should be based on is open to debate.
Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And they said work hard, and die suddenly, because it's fun."
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com