[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

[Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Marco Colombo wrote:
> There's a similar thread on the Italian freeciv list, so I think
> it's time to go international. B-)
> 
> First, while I share Mike's (and others') adversion against ICS, I
> must say I don't enjoy playing with Mike's proposed rules. Well, Mike,
> you showed us a way of building a big empire with only a dozen cities,
> but could you please show us another one? I mean a different strategy 
> which can be winning with your rules. Other than building your 12 cities 
> and growing them up, with almost no need of early exploring. Do you ever
> build a Trireme? Or any Feudal Age military unit? I admit it's a good
> thing to see some Nukes sometimes, but with your rules you almost 
> make the early part of the game just a race for vertical expansion.

As I said at the end of one of my mails, may be the problem is here: each
proposed model will lead to only one (or few)  ideal conditions, so only one
strategy will result successfull.
Think about evolutionism: each time a new species appears, as the product of
mutation, it survives or dies, depending on the physical characteristic of the
species (model) , and the ambient (freeciv map) , so a very particular
behavior (strategy) must be adopted which will be the more successfull by far.

May be the other point that causes all this discussion is that the freeciv map
(ambient) is like the stationary universe model: all the map looks the same.
May be if we change the terraforming system, so to add regions of the maps who
are big continents, and other who are small ones, and other who are
archipelagos; some that are big extensions of jungle, other that are big
extensions of deserts, big extension of plains, of mountains, etc; clusters of
fish, clusters of oil, cluster of gold, of iron, of whales....

Even the followed strategy might change drastically on different
technological levels.