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

[Tony Stuckey <stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:30:32AM +0000, Robert Brady wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Reinier Post wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:37:00AM -0600, Tony Stuckey wrote:
> > Yes, it is indeed impossible.  There is no way to catch up while your main
> > continent is being torn apart by ironclad-led attacks.  You need max taxes
> > just to pay for defenses even if you *have* Steam Engine.

        Ummm, Guys....
        Fundamentally, my major game activity is tracking my position
relative to other players.  I explore and expand aggressively, establish
embassies quickly, and use the information therein to determine who to
screw.  If I'm not #1, I make enough deals to get there FAST.  If I am #1,
I make enough deals or cause enough war mayhem that I stay FAR ahead of #2.
        Diplomacy with other players is ab absolutely critical component of
this strategy.  Were I ever boycotted, I would probably lose.  And I'm fine
with that.

        You're not playing in a vaccum.  To win solo, a given player has to
control a large plurality of the production on the map.  In an 8-player or
more game, that is going to be *VERY* hard to achieve.
        Are you seriously suggesting that no matter what other players do,
you can grow as fast as their entire, aggregate empires?  No matter what?

> In particular, by the time your coastal cities are being pounded by enemy
> Ironclads, you might well not have met another player who is able to make
> a useful contribution to your research effort.

        That has to be a pretty damn large map.

> And its pretty difficult to build a caravel/diplomat and get it to a
> friendly foreign power whilst you are blockaded.

        This I agree with.

> Often I will be the no2 in a game, and will get to so desperate (because
> no1 is attacking me) as to subsidise minor nations, (ie just give them
> what tech I have, in exchange for little or nothing) so they can perhaps
> hassle the no1, and get him off my back for a little while, long enough
> to get proper defences...

        Which part of that was desperation, again?  That's fundamental game
play!  My main enemy is *ALWAYS* fighting a 4-front war.  I make sure of
it!
        (Note to self:  Use more exclamation points.)

> But whether this works or not depends on how strong the third parties are
> - if they are much weaker then me, its likely they'll get squashed.  And
> its not as if I'll be able to send backup.

        Yes.  An absolutely tiny and weak player is best served by
staying out of any possible fights.  Postponing the inevitable extinction,
as it were.

> And no1 is often unlikely to risk provoking war on the 3rd parties - he
> just wants his main competitor - me - out of the race, the others don't
> have a hope of winning.  So maybe he'll pacify them through diplomacy,
> promises of land, and so forth.  (And they'll be happy because they came
> 2nd, not 3rd or 4th)

        And if you're doing the same.... How long are they going to stay
weak third parties?
        Be a Kingmaker.  Hardcore.  Touch it, love it, live it.  You'll
enjoy the game more.  I certainly do. :)

> I am of the opinion that Ironclad should happen a lot later in the game
> (probably after Metallurgy), certainly after most of the colonisation has
> been finished, and after everyone sensible has had the chance to set up
> embassies with everyone.

        That depends on map size.  Play on a 40x25 generator 2 map with 8
players, and you get ~3 cities.  Embassies are also easy to come by under
these conditions.
        Are people just totally in love with 200x100 maps?
-- 
Anthony J. Stuckey                              stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"And they said work hard, and die suddenly, because it's fun."
        -Robyn Hitchcock.