[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Smallpox server.

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 02:59:43PM +1100, dnh wrote:
> Jing, I played a game on the smallpox server and I have one major gripe.
> The game seems to be less fun.

(Actually, the 'no smallpox' server.  See

  http://www.freeciv.org/tutorials/nopox.html

for details on the 'no smallpox' server settings.)

I think this is because it takes too long.  For an example of how the
AI handles it, see

  http://civserver.freeciv.org/viewgame.phtml?game=6011

I set the end year to 5000 and disabled the space race to see if the
game would have a winner.  Unfortunately, around 3400, some user
entered the game and set the endyear to stop it, so I couldn't finish
my observation.  But you can still observe the basic facts: even though
the AI likes to build improvements and has no trouble with the
micromanagement, it runs into states of balance, and happiness wonders
crucially affect this balance.  If you look at the gamelog, you will
notice that more than half of the cities built are destroyed, including
the cities that contain the Oracle and Michelangelo's Chapel.  Humans
wouldn't allow this, but is is indicative of the relative helplessness of
nations that they allow this to happen when set to AI.  The nation that
dominates initially builds the Oracle, and settles a whole empty
continent, then loses the Oracle, its capital, and that whole continent
to barbarians!  Meanwhile, one of the nations, the Vikings, have stayed
at 2 cities (!), but eventually, they build JS Bach, and this alone
allows them to catch up with the others and even surpass them:
eventually, they also build the other happiness wonders, and gain
what seems to be a winning advantage.

I'm confident that a diligent human would prevent the loss of their
capital and major wonders, but at the same time, I am convinced that no
human would put up with the increased level of micromanagement involved
in winning a game like this, when compared to a 'normal' (smallpox)
game.  It is so much slower!

> Firstly, I found the limited amount of cities a clever idea and it did add
> a certain new element which is good. It basically makes war pointless,
> even if you get a city it isn't worth much cause your whole empire goes
> crazy.

Yes.  The overall price you pay is stagnated development and increased
micromanagement.  You need to do more micromanagement at less effect
(the only effect it has is negative, to reduce unhappiness).  Instead of
running around and enjoying life in the free your game is reduced to
struggling with the bridle of unhappiness.

> Problems are, temples don't do nearly enough. I build one and it doesn't
> even stop one unhappiness in a city of 2 =(. With temples in every city
> and all cities on 3.. if I build up to 12 there is no way to cure
> unhappiness but with lux rates and elvis. Yawn.

Exactly.  Before you know it, you need to throw in 60% luxuries before your
size 1 cities will be happy.  Why?  Maybe you built 1 or 2 cities too many.
Does the player get informed that this is the reason?  I believe Mike's
new happiness dialog addresses this problem.  Still, what I don't like
is the sudden limit: above 13 cities in Republic (in Monarchy, above 11)
happiness is *suddenly* a problem.  It would be better to have a gradual
increase that the user can sense.

It succeeds in making city improements essential to the game, but
unfortunately, the cost is too high for me to enjoy it.

> It has become a really sad race for wonders. Once someone ges Michs or
> JS' they have won it (unless they are a very poor player).

Yes, but at the same time, they don't contribute much: Michelangelo's
only allows you to add a few cities.

> Solutions? Well I suppose alittle less restriction on cities, or alittle
> more size before unhappiness. Reducing wonders, increasing temples,
> decreasing colosseums maintanence.
> 
> Currently it isn't fun, and being fun is by far the most important part of
> a game.

Try unhappiness == 2.  I found it interesting.

Some things are interesting about unhappiness == 1 as well, but for me
they don't make up for the general feeling of frustration and paranoia.

-- 
Reinier