Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: October 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: civ3's answer to smallpox
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: civ3's answer to smallpox

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: civ3's answer to smallpox
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:15:01 -0400
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

Jacky Mallett <warlock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

just to throw some more fuel on the fire, smallpox is a little more
complex  a strategy that i think most people realise, and in games where
several people are using it, rapture does come in quite handy towards the
middle/end part of the game. You don't actually need much investment,
you just have to whack the luxury setting up for a few rounds.

OK, maybe I am seriously mistaken. But without irrigation or a harbor, it's unlikely that you will be able to grow a city beyond size 5 or 6, rapture or not, simply because of lack of food. You will also need roads on land to increace trade, because otherwise the luxury setting doesn't do jack and your city won't be able to celebrate. Last but not the least, you will need temple/marketplace to keep your citizens happy once your cities have grown. It's much easier to just found new cities with settlers so you don't have to deal with these problems.

It's also not true that with smallpox you don't get to play with
higher tech - i've gone all the way to space race several times, you
just need a game with several players of roughly equal skill.

And how often does that happen?

Game balance is a highly non-trivial (and theoretically speaking,
mostly unsolved), problem. To make smallpox and largepox simultaneously
valid and matched strategies, in the same game, would be an interesting
task, and my suspicion is even if this was achieved, there would still
be an advantage to smallpox, since the proportional cost of losing a city
would be less than in the largepox case.

Exactly.

Personally i think the critical question isn't which strategy is ethically
the right one, (to somewhat dreadfully overgeneralise), but what makes
for a fun game.  And in my experience,  a good smallpox player can cause
just as much havoc in a largepox game if they've got the time.

IMHO, too much hovac already. So much hovac, in fact, that they have taken the fun out of the game. But that's just me.

Mike


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



[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]