Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: gregor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption
From: Daniel Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:00:54 +0100

On 2001-11-27 21:31:10, Gregor Zeitlinger wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Sjölie wrote:
> > Right...
> > I'd just like to add my vote for using distance computed in a bit
> > smarter way... Travel distance should be simple enough and I really
> > think it would be a step in the right direction...
> > A modification to this that I find interesting would be to give
> > penalties for going through cities... This could be motivated as passing
> > through a city means the corruption in that city takes a bite and it
> > should force small-pox players to deal with corruption...
> > The simplest way to do this might be to not count (rail)roads in cities
> > when calculating corruption distance but there might be better ways...
> ...and we should consider wheather the passing city has a courthose, which
> would reduce the corruption pananty for the city that is on the way. A
> marketplace on the other hand increases corruption, everyone knows that,
> right? This is actually the the least we can do for realism, but wait: If
> you are in democracy und have a public transportation system and highways,
> this will also increase corruption as the rail barons and the car tycoons
> will contribute a lot to campain financing...
> The game is already complex enough! It should have fairly easy rules,
> because otherwise it will cause headaches to play and the guy who wrote
> the algo will be the only to have a fair chance of controllig the game, if
> at all.
> Besides, I've made the experience that games with simpler rules tend to
> incrase in game quality faster, as nobody just won because he was the only
> one who saw the rule that you can also win, if you just say: "I've won".
> Civ is already complex enough and hard enough to predict.
> Sorry for the exaggerations...

Well, I disagree... :)
If a rule has a simple formulation then the implementation may be more
complex if that is justified... Like, I don't really care exactly how the
winner of a battle is decided - at least not when playing the game... :)
All I need to know in this case is that cities should be connected with
(rail)roads not going through cities to minimize corruption...

I certainly don't think freeciv is too complex as long as smallpox
works... Just covering the land with cities is not very complex...
Sure, you should be able to have an empire of lots of small cities but
then you should have to take care of things like corruption... Otherwise
it's too simple...

Now, the penalizing moves through cities might be a bad idea...
But I don't agree that it would make the game too complex...
It's not about realism per se, just about making the game interesting in
sensible ways...


Now take a deep breath, smile and don't take life so seriously... :)

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