[Freeciv-Dev] Re: More on (un)happiness

[Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 06:10:46AM -0500, Mike Jing wrote:
> Marko Lindqvist <caz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >It seems that you are against all expansion, when I think expansion 
> >outwards is ok and actually requires skill. We seem to agree that cities 
> >should overlap less (few big cities instead of lots of small ones).
> 
> I am not sure if I said all expansion are bad.  Expansion certainly is an 
> important part of the game -- you can't expect to win without any expansion 
> (unless you are playing OCC against the AI).  The problem starts when 
> expansion becomes the only game in town because there are no checks and 
> balances in place to put other interesting aspects of the game into play.  I 
> think we can all agree that expansion is way too important with current 
> default rules.

        To a certain point, but when you set up the map, you define the
basis for that.
        An 80x50 map is 4000 tiles.  A city controls 21 of those.  By
definition, when you define an 80x50 map with 8 players, you are expecting
each player to place cities onto 500 * LANDMASS tiles.  With the normal
land percentage of 30, you are expecting 7-8 cities per player.  If you're
not happy with that, *YOU* are in control.  Change it.
        If you're normally playing on 200x100 maps with 4 players, and
bitching that each player gets 50 cities, you get *NO* sympathy from me.

        Now there is a side effect that the AI does not take map size into
account.  It has no understanding of expected expansion size, and whether
it's doing better or worse than the expected average.  Adding this is
important, I think.

> Here you seem to be saying that the game is intrinsicly unfair and there is 
> nothing we can do about it, and I have to disagree.  I think we can and 
> should.  The real issue here is not about fairness, but gameplay, as it 
> always is.  It seems unfair to "punish" a player simply because he/she is 
> good at expansion, but that's missing the point.  By limiting the 
> effectiveness of expansion, you can encourage/force players to use other 
> skills besides expansion and bring previously ignored elements of the game 
> back into play, thus making the game both more challenging and enjoyable, at 
> least IMHO.

        Map generator two was specifically put into the game to try and
ensure some basis of fairness.  Map generator 1 would produce maps with
grossly disparate continent sizes, that would yes, inherently favor certain
players.
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And they said work hard, and die suddenly, because it's fun."
        -Robyn Hitchcock.