[Freeciv-Dev] Re: the 40x25 limit

[Paul Dean <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Erik Sigra <sigra@xxxxxxx> writes:

> måndagen den 12 februari 2001 17:31 skrev Paul Dean:
> > Erik Sigra <sigra@xxxxxxx> writes:
> > > måndagen den 12 februari 2001 16:10 skrev Reinier Post:
> > > > I can answer this myself by going through the code, but a member of
> > > > this list may have done this before:
> > > >
> > > > Is there any technical reason for the 40x25 minimum map size in
> > > > Freeciv? If I recompile it with 1x1 as the minimum mapsize, where will
> > > > it blow up? I realise the map generators will probably run into
> > > > problems, but is there anything fatal?
> > >
> > > Probably the client trying to display that tile. It would wrap around lot
> > > of times in the visible area.
> >
> > 1x1 is a bit extreme, but what about xsize=10?  I'd be interested in
> > the dynamics of a 10x100 game.
> 
> This would probably also give the client problems to show it
> correctly. The gameplay would be unbalanced, because the two players
> at the ends of the tube would have 1-front-war, while the others
> have 2-front-war. We all know how that is likely to end.

your point being ... what?

It's only an extension of the fact that in gen 2 some islands are
closer together than others.  If one good player starts nearer to a
poor player than an other good player does then he has a large
advantage.  In a 10x100 game, some players would have a handicap, but
that's always the case.  Freeciv is never a level playing field.

Take a 5x100 map as an example.  The point of why I think it would be
interesting is that everyone's border would be either 5 or 10 squares.
That's all you have to attack and that's all you have to defend.  You
would have people in the middle making swift alliances to restrict
their border to 5 instead of 10.  Unless it would make something in
the game blow up, there's no reason to not have the option.  Why is
min(xsize)=40?

-- 
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/