[Freeciv-Dev] Re: comments on ics solutions

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marco Colombo <marco@xxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> I see. But mine was not a blind argument based on realism. It was a 
> gameplay issue. The game would be more interesting if you don't know from 
> the beginning that you have to grow a dozen huge cities.
Actually, once you have managed to take away the advantages of ICS, the 
virtue of huge cities will become obvious.  Once you get past a certain 
threshold, vertical expansion will rule.
> Sure, but "big gets bigger" holds also for vertical espansion.
That is true to an extent.  But it does make horizontal expansion much more 
difficult, thus taking away a major factor in the problem.  Moreover, it 
makes conquering a lot less rewarding than it is now, thius giving the 
weaker player a better chance of survival.
> That's a symptom of the fact there's only one clearly better way to play.
No.  It's a fundamental problem in civ type games like Freeciv.  And I 
believe unhappiness is introduced specifically to address this problem.
> The more variables you put into the game (number of cities being one of 
> them, average size another one), the more choices (among equally viable 
> possibilities) you force a player to make, the less likely is that a player 
> can play "the perfect game". Even if you manage to get some advantage at 
> some time, you still have to be careful at the choices you make, as they 
> can be sub-optimal, and give the other players a chance to catch up. But if 
> there are few or no choices, once you lead you'll be leading for the rest 
> of the game. And you need to *increase* the number of variables in the game 
> to give players more choices to make.
The problem is not the number of variables, but the balance between them.  
You don't need complicated rules to make the game more complex.  Chess, 
anyone?
[snip]
> Exactly. So you don't think that the number of cities, their
> average size, even the distribution of their sizes are worth to be 
> variables that belong to the game?  And that the more you can "play" with 
> these variables (in a balanced way, of course), the more enjoyable the game 
> is?
I strongly suspect that, given the existing city model, the kind of balance 
you are looking for is next to impossible to achieve.
> Ok, I'm saying it's not "perfect" (as YOU say). I've never said it's 
> "unnecessary". Happiness is *one* af the features of the game
I am merely point out that unhappiness is introduced primarily to limit 
expansion.  And if you take away that role, it no longer has much of a place 
in the game.
> that ICS manages to avoid. Corruption is another one. *I* proposed to 
> introduce an happiness penalty for cities that are placed too close. And 
> also I think that playing with trade production also affects  happiness. 
> I'm saying  that using *just* happiness to balance the game against ICS 
> leads to other kind of unbalance problems. I'd prefer a bunch of small 
> changes to the game, all in the same direction (against ICS), instead of a 
> big one that addresses part of the problem. I'm 100% with you when you say 
> that happiness should play a bigger role, believe me. But I also thing the 
> role you gave to it it's just too big. It reduces
> the number of variables. Which IMHO is bad overall for the game.
I am certainly open to other ideas which can help against ICS, and then the 
unhappiness penalty can be relaxed somewhat.  However, it should still play 
a big roles in limiting horizontal expansion.  (Its effect on vertical 
expansion is obvious.)
> As for realism, I believe that RL is "balanced" in a way, otherwise we'll 
> be all speaking the same language now. It's so balanced that there no clear 
> economic, political model that is the best. So it's a good thing try and 
> learn from RL. Not for the sake of realism itself. But to implement
some of the lessons already learned.

It's also so balanced that nobody has conquered the world yet.

This is just a reminder.  ;-)

Mike


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com