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

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 06:10:46AM -0500, Mike Jing wrote:
> > 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.
Only to a certain point.  ICS works on almost any kind of map, AFAIK.

> 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.
I am prefectly happy with that.  The problem is that nobody build size 21, 
or even size 12, cities because it just doesn't pay off under the current 
rules, no matter what kind of map you choose.
> 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.
I don't think anyone is complaining about that.  Cretianly not me.  The 
problem is not the number of cities per se, but that there is no incentive 
to develop your cities more fully.
> 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.
There are many things that the AI doesn't know.  Any improvement in the AI 
would be important.
> > 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.
That's exactly why I think it would be nice if some kind of mechanism could 
be put into place to make gen1 games more balanced.
Mike


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com