[Freeciv-Dev] Re: An alternate nopox strategy

[dnh <dnh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey I really favour this idea. As a 'smallpoxer' myself and a long time
freeciver, and have seen quite a few new strategies. While I personally
don't have a problem with freecivs current balance, this idea certainly
has alot of merit both realistically and playability.

I think an important issue to note is that freeciv is designed for few
players, 2 - 8+. If we look at the real world the number of players would
be just alittle more ;). I found when playing alot of ais on a
medium-small map, freeciv produced games very like the real world (except
for the fact that major powers don't seem to lose their power very
quickly.. unlike our world, where the Romans, Mongols, Germans.. have
risen and fallen). In terms of small pox, look at the real world for the
scale of the Earth, medium - large cities are built very close indeed..
Europe for example has alot of cities.

While on the topic of real world comparisons, I also note that freeciv
doesn't touch on Civs that can be 'wiped' out in terms of #cities, but can
restart by such things as revolts.. gorilla warefare. Perhaps some way of
similating that might be very interesting too.

Anyway, you can see by implementing the ideas stated below, smallpoxing
can still be used.. but on a much less rampant scale.. players can still
build on that tiny island.. but they will have to manage it alot more. I
found that the current system of no-smallpox makes for a VERY tedious,
VERY boring and VERY unrealistic game.

dnh

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Terry Browning wrote:

> I've had an idea for a different approach to nopox.
> 
> The change is to count non-native farming within the hinterland of a
> city as if it were population. i.e. If Rome has size 3 and Naples is
> farming 2 squares within the Rome's hinterland, then the city has a
> stability as if it were size 5. Naples's city square counts as a farmed
> square.
> 
> Consider the first few moves of a game:
> The Americans begin by founding Washington on the first move, moving
> their other settler East. The next move it moves East; then New York is
> founded. Each city is within the other's hinterland. If each city places
> it's citizen to work within the joint hinterland, each city has the
> stability of a size 3 city. If Washington grows to size 2, it goes
> straight into revolt.
> 
> The farmers are moved out of the joint area (Washington now has the
> stability of size 3) and Washington's second citizen converts to a
> settler. This moves two squares North and founds Boston. Washington
> (still size 1) again has the stability of a city of size 3, even if New
> York and Boston keep their farmers out of Washington's hinterland.
> Washington is now crowded to the point of uselessness.
> 
> This approach has a number of advantages over the present system:
> 1 It kicks in earlier. A pox player will learn fast that that strategy
> is doomed.
> 2 It does not punish large civilizations. A player can have any number
> of cities that they can find room for, without penalty. For this reason,
> this rule should be more popular with players since it doesn't threaten
> their ambitions, only the pox.
> 3 It allows new aggressive tactics when one civilization has a city
> close to a neighbour. A player tired of a treaty can cause unrest in a
> nearby city, pressuring the neighbour to break the treaty.
> 4 The change reflects the usual human reactions of looking at territory
> in a proprietorial way, envying neighbours and hating those they see as
> encroaching and crowding. When neighbours are too close for comfort,
> they can't be friends.
> 
> Just an idea I had while standing around yesterday afternoon.:-)
> 
> --
> Terry
> 
>