[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Civ II player puzzled by ICS strategy (long)

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Phew, that's quite a big difference. It seems to me this could be 
> fine-tuned in the rulesets to match harder levels? It would seem more
> logical to me than patch out the city center.
This is easily done via a server option: "set unhappysize=1" will 
aproximately give you Deity level.  However, nobody seems to want to let go 
of their good old ways.
BTW, I have already concluded that patching out the city center is not the 
right way to go and thus abandoned that approach.
> > 2) By default, there is no second "number-of-cities threshold" in Freeciv.
> In fact, I'm not sure this was a real threshold as much as a secondary 
> effect of the increased corruption as the empire spreads.
> The "Very Unhappy" arised whenever trade/luxuries/elvises fell below some 
> level. They were explained in the helpfile.
I am certain this is indeed a real threshold in CivII.

> >You get a one-time penalty only at around 13 cities.
>
> Funny thing is, I hated that penalty and upped the number to around
> 18, partly to help the AIs, too. Even so, the stall happened.
That's the whole idea.  It's called game balance.

> > 3) There are no "very unhappy" citizens in Freeciv.
> They may be not that important. Corruption and unhappiness alone could 
> cause severe stalls. "Very Unhappy" just made them worse. More
> micromanagement, too. But made Republic and Democracy "interesting" by not 
> allowing the player to slip into carelesness.
Problem is, neither the corruption or unhappiness level in Freeciv is high 
enough to put a stop to ICS.
> I'd propose to "up the level" on the rulesets/servers to at least "Emperor" 
> and see if ICS is still the rollercoaster it seems. The need for martial 
> law really slows settler production, and everything combines to stall the 
> "pure ICS" strategies.
I believe it will not be enough.  There will still be enough loopholes to 
allow ICS to succeed.
> I believe that even in a "king level" setting, corruption could play a key 
> factor in limiting the economics of ICS.
Remember there is really no concept of "Deity" or "King" level in Freeciv.  
You have to adjust individial parameters separately in the rulesets or the 
server options.
> Since I played mostly big-landmass maps and only very few islands-only 
> games, could it be that ICS + Ironclads wins only when "ruling the seas" is 
> the key?
That's only where it is most obvious.  Even on other types of maps, ICS 
still holds an undisputed advantage.
> Ah, yes. I would not call that a loophole. Nothing helps against corruption 
> but the higher Govts. But the Gardens (or Bach's, or Mike's) really change 
> the name of the game. The "small" cities start celebrating and growing and 
> supporting themselves, at which point I
> switch to cash + Diplomats and Game is Over.
Well, if it unbalances the game, it _is_ a loophole.  The one in CivII is 
that, although there are very unhappy citizens, the wonders make then go 
away easily.  My patches will make this more difficult, and thus effectively 
reduce the effectiveness of happiness wonders.
Mike


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