[Freeciv-Dev] Re: language (was: Inertia)

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 05:16:19PM -0500, R. Miller added after quoting:

> [...] I really like your ideas for implicit levels of trade between
> cities and their fluctuation as a function of contact via units.

The idea is to make trade work more like traderoutes by itself, by the
way trade works in general.  I really like the idea of traderoutes but
I find them too cumbersome to use in practical gameplay.

> Concerning corruption, it occurred to me that corruption in normal
> cities may represent not only crime, but the "waste" created by people
> who resist a regime. If this were set to a really high value for
> recently conquered cities, and then slowly rolled back with time as the
> resistance dwindles, then I would expect that the effect would be that
> of inertia.

This is what the idea of 'language' tries to address: it is an attempt to
introduce a notion of 'cultural coherence' that influences productivity
(mainly, trade).  In conquest it should have roughly the same effect
as your proposal, but it is more general.

> However, I have never looked at the design and code of
> Freeciv, so I really don't know what the ramifications would be, and I
> must defer to your team of specialists.

For corruption, you could start at

  http://www.freeciv.org/lxr/source/server/citytools.c?v=cvs#L530

> You have discussed the integration of conquered cities at length, but
> what of gradually increasing the effects of Wonders or of Knowldge
> Advances?

I don't know.  If the idea of cultural diversity can be shown to work
well for trade it can be applied to everything else in principle.
E.g. the effectiveness of units may be achieved.  But wonders are
really a special case, with their 'all or nothing' effect.

> I don't expect that implementing these ideas will increase the
> micromanagement; on the contrary, it should reduce it. Micromanagement
> is possible because players can predict the precise effects of their
> actions - building units or infrastructures. If the model becomes more
> complex, players will have to pay more heuristically, or
> probabilistically, and less arithmetically. Put more succintly, if the
> model is too complex to figure out precisely in a given situation, the
> player will follow their instinct or judgment instead - maybe players
> micromanage because it's possible, or because they have to.

I don't think this is how it works.  If better micromanagement would pay
off, but you don't know how to improve, the game becomes frustrating.
(I speak from experience.)  The math must not be hard, it must be natural.

> Robaire

-- 
Reinier