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

[Aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 13:54 11/01/01 -0500, you wrote:

>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.

Hehehe, I just lost count of the many variations I arranged into that good
ole rules.txt. Right now I'm not only O.S. handicapped to play Freeciv, but
a freak failure wiped out my old installation of CivII (blame M$). Besides,
playing novelties against the AI is not the same as a multiplayer game, I
think.    :-(

So I believe some pre-tuned/pre-defined settings/difficulty levels (say
four, for starters) could allow people play their preferred ways, while
letting other players play by another set of rules. And this would make
rankings or even championships more manageable. There should be some FAQ or
helpfiles to explain things to novel players, too.

And I'm glad to have more variations than can be possibly explored in a
lifetime. They add much more bang for the buck.


>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 ;-) .

I guessed it. I just feel time is coming to add some of those "finishing
touches" to a nearly ready to rock game.

*sigh* If I had a workbench ready I'd be patching everything until I could
really contribute something to one of my all-time favorite games. Right now,
it's only ideas, if they are valuable at all.


>Well, a little playtesting convinced me that it was not the way to go.

This goes to prove Occam's method: Why make it convoluted when there's a
simpler solution.


>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.

Glad to hear this. Let ICS lovers play their Ironclad/Cavalry floodings as
they like in their low difficulty settings. Let everybody else spill their
brains out trying to build some real empires and THEN flooding...    :-)


>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.

How I wish I could be one of those. To help Build a FreeCivilization That
Will Stand The Test Of Time...


>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.

You're very right, but I'm unable to do it now. Maybe someday soon...


>Clearly you have misunderstood my statement, and Reinier has already 
>explained this for me.  (Thanks a bunch, Reinier.)

Sorry, blame it on quick response time.


>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 say let's address the big guy by allying everybody else against him, but
then again, I lack the practical knowledge of Freeciv.


>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 

Geee, too bad. Still WoWs could still be built for the sake of historical
record. Call them morale boosters, or productivity achievements, or just
showing off.


>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.

Hum, well, so you're telling me that mutual trust, goodwill, feudalism or
even sharing booty won't allow long lasting peaceful player relations? No
wonder people call this a wargame <grin>


>Oh, did I mention there is no fundamentalism in Freeciv?   Now there is a
closed loophole.

I'd rather see Fundies tweaked down to make them a fair competitor instead
of banning them from the start. Maybe in some future release...

M.A.

------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to 
whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent those of Sema Group. 
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this 
email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or 
copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------