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

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On the other hand, if it is not too hard, some server(s) could be set
> up for the more "advanced" or "challenge-oriented" players...
> Still other servers with longer/shorter/whatever timeouts...
> Servers playing only historical maps...  Etcetera...
You can already do this with your own server: you can tune the rules to your 
heart's content.  However, there needs to be some standards on public 
servers, and too many variations could be potentially confusing.
> Let people "vote with their mouse"... even display rankings ala Civ "Hall 
> of Fame" to see who wins what kind of game... (everybody termed
> as "The Meek", "The Unready", "The Iron Fist"... boy was that cool :-)
There are many neat features like this that are yet to be implemented.  IMHO 
there are more pressing metters at the moment, but of course anyone is 
welcome to make a case for their favorite (and prepared to be told to 
implement it themselves ;-) .
> Fine, but, as a programmer myself, I'd say do not throw away that code... 
> one never knows.   :-)
Well, a little playtesting convinced me that it was not the way to go.

[snip]
> Well, there's no need to ban ICS. Only slow it. Allow other empire-builders 
> to defend themselves up to the point where big cities
> matter. Let ICS players know what happens when irresistible forces meet 
> unbeatable defenses...    :-D
I agree.  And I think I have found a way to make ICS impossible to succeed 
while at the same time make the game more balanced, more chanlenging, and 
more enjoyable.  Best of all, it doesn't require any significant change of 
the basic rules of the game.  All I need is a few simple tweaks within the 
existing rulesets and a tiny patch to close one loophole in the game 
mechanics.  I will explain it in more detail in a separate post later.
> This may be a bonus. Make a list of pseudo-levels of difficulty attainable 
> by nudging every parameter a bit every way. Have a dozen of them. Let 
> people "vote" on them, playtest them, invent strategies
> for them... invest everything in some start-up company specialized in
> life-support sistems for addict net-players...    :-)
As Tony Stuckey pointed out, this has been proposed before, but has not been 
implemented.  Maybe someone will get around to it someday, but I think there 
are still a few important pieces missing from Freeciv that should be 
addressed first.  Again, we will need more developers to get it done sooner.
> I'd like to be able myself to test that. I believe that by improving some 
> defensive capabilities of a handful of units/terrains the easier
> onslaughts could be repelled and things would be not so straightforward for 
> the single-minded attacker.
You should certainly start playing Freeciv and see it for yourself.  So far, 
all your arguments are based solely on your experience with CivII.  Don't 
get me wrong, your insights from a CivII perspective are extremely valuable, 
but you will have a better understanding of the problems involved once you 
have played more Freeciv.
> Well, nukes unbalance the game. Launching the spaceship unbalances the 
> game.  Lots of ironclads unbalance the game. Hordes of wealthy diplomats 
> unbalance the game. When I can afford to build every WoW I want or take any 
> one of them from an enemy, then the game is unbalanced and I'll win.
Clearly you have misunderstood my statement, and Reinier has already 
explained this for me.  (Thanks a bunch, Reinier.)
> It's the "big get bigger" problem that people complain about...
You hit the nail in the head with this statement.  It is an important part 
of what my proposal would address as well, apart from ICS.
> I'd call something a loophole if this unbalancing is achieved by some
> easy/cheap mean. Here you have a point. These happiness wonders are too 
> powerful at a bargain price, and I, for one, would like to see their 
> cost/benefits tweakable... or even to be able to build "counter-wonders"...
They can be tweaked.  We will see if it will be necessary.

> By the way, off topic... first thing I changed in CivII was rename
> the Eiffel Tower to OLIMPIC GAMES. Made much more sense to me, and it was 
> kinda neat seeing several tribes pursuing them...
As you will see, the Eiffel Tower is missing in Freeciv because it doesn't 
make much sense considering the way diplomacy is currently implemented in 
Freeciv.  There is still no way to ensure peace, which is another reason why 
ICS+war is the preferred strategy.  More cities => more military units under 
republic without happiness problems.  No senate to enforce peace treaty.  
You get the idea.
Oh, did I mention there is no fundamentalism in Freeciv?   Now there is a 
closed loophole.
Mike


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