[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Patch: bye bye free city center

[<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Mike Jing wrote:

> Paul Dean <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >I agree with this.  It seems clear that the way to fix freeciv in this
> >regard would be to make the city improvements much more powerful. Opening
> >up ones mind, why not make a library give five times the science rather
> >than 1.5?  Similarly with the other improvements.  ICS has discovered that
> >the benefits of those things are too small.
>
> That's certainly a possibility.  I know it will take more than one patch to
> fix this problem (provided that you think it is a problem at all).

I don't think increasing the benefits of libraries (and similar) is the
best way to go. Since I haven't played multiplayer freeciv, and hence
haven't met smallpox, I might be wrong, but let me explain my experience
with civ2. From the moment I realized the importance of expansion (I
learned this by observing that the russians always was the hardest
opponent in civ1 - and why? they built a lot of cities!), I started
developing a strategy that combined expansion and city development (and
hence more careful city placement). So when using large maps with little
ocean, I usually expand radially, with the outmost layers of cities only
producing settlers, and the innermost developing (in a perfectionist's
way). The outer cities only stop producing settlers when they meet an
obstacle, like ocean or an enemy. Then they usually develop somewhat too.
In the 'end', I have a large civilization with developed cities (against
and computer players on deity level, or normal level freeciv, which is the
only thing I have tried (just one game)). So what about those libraries?
Well, the point is that I usually reach the end of the tech tree long
before I have developed most of my cities. At this point I do have quite
some libraries, but there is no way that I need them to be more effective.
And I hardly ever build universities, simply because by the time my cities
can build them, I have already researched the last tech. (Of, well, maybe
three or four of the first cities I make and develop have the time to
build universities and have the use for them, but that is not many
enough.)

Well, to make a long story short, I think the libraries are more than
effective enough. But even my 'half smallpox strategy and half developing'
strategy must be set back a bit, or else universities (and the like) will
not be part of the strategy. I think this 'city center' idea is the best I
have seen so far to set back fast expansion at a cost that we should be
able to live with (I think). Combined with high unhappiness level (which I
always play with now that I know more or less how to handle it) it will
make the game very challenging, no matter your strategy. (Even if you like
full development, you cannot settle for too few cities if you play with
players that know how to combine expansion and development.)

I have a question to all smallpox players. How fast do you reach the end
of the tech tree (assuming you try to reach the end of it) ?

> >That's where you miss the point.  It certainly not "nothing more".
> >The main part of freeciv is the warfare.  Two people both playing ICS
> >strategy at some point go to war.  That's where it gets interesting
> >and the skills of the players manifest themselves.
> >
> >It's just not true.  Your enemy has ironclads, so what?  Let him
> >capture a city.  Steal technology from that city and then bribe the
> >city back.  Hey presto, you probably now have ironclads too.  Your
> >enemy has better production than you, so what?  Form an alliance and
> >launch an attack on the enemies capital.  Think of something to
> >surprise the enemy.  That's what warfare is about.
>
> Point well taken.  I am fully aware of the importance of warfare (including
> espionage) since you had me beat on more than one occasion with superior
> skills.

I like warfare myself. After I have developed my cities good enough, I
go to war against all my opponent (eventually). But I do it after I have
developed.

> >Freeciv is not SimCiv.  It is more than making a nice empire of
> >cities, roads and improvements.  It's a war game.  The ICS strategy
> >means that new players will lose quite spectacularly until they learn
> >to use it.  But after that they will still lose spectacularly until
> >they learn to express their creativity in warfare.  But that is OK -
> >a game in which new people can compete with experts is a game in
> >which there is nothing thing to learn.
>
> Yes, but it also should be more than just warfare.  The problem with ICS
> strategy is that it makes the sim part of the game pretty much irrelevant
> and any alternative stretagy virtually impossible.  I might be wrong here,
> but it is practically impossible to win against ICS unless you start
> building a lot of small cities yourself.  This may be fine and dandy for
> many, but I think players whould at least have a choice as to how the game
> could be played -- SimCiv Or WarCiv.  Now there is no choice because you
> don't stand a chance in hell against an ICS player unless you use ICS
> yourself.

Options to tweak gameplay towards SimCiv or WarCiv are obviously welcome,
but I think we should aim for a default that does not bias either
strategy. If you're good at WarCiv, you should be able to take down both
another WarCiv player and a SimCiv player, and vica versa. At the moment,
it seems that the SimCiv player will start with a disadvantage (his/her
strategy!) due to smallpox, and even WarCiv players should like this
problem fixed (would give them a larger variety of strong opponent
strategies). (This is what Paul wants, as I understand him, more or less.)

> >Now I don't mind getting rid of smallpox, but I wouldn't want the
> >game to turn into an 8 hour SimCiv.  Essentially it is a war game,
> >and of course *very* few people can often spare 8 hours in a single
> >stretch!
>
> I agree that long games are impractical.  But surely we can find ways to
> speed up the game without sacrificing gameplay.  And I do hope Freeciv is
> more than just a war game.  Otherwise, we should just tell those who
> complain about the lack of city development to shut up and learn ICS and how
> to wage war (maybe exactly the point you want to make?).
>
> Mike

Wouldn't client side AI for micromanagement of cities (and similar?) solve
some of the problem that SimCiv (with city development) use more time?

All the best,
Johannes