[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Project goals

[Martin Olveyra <molv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I definitively don't agree the series of sugerences that have been 
exposed on reference to the limitation of the number of cities, or that 
the settler as a not buildable unit, or a big fixed cost for them, etc.
The problem of this kind of sugerences is that any change that is made 
to the game on this sense, will improve some things but it will worsen a 
lots of other things, so it will always mantain unbalanced.
So let me introduce an economic concept that lays at the base of the 
problem of balance of the game. And this is that the cost of everything 
in freeciv (and as far as I know, of every game of this kind) is a fixed 
cost, when in reality (even in socialist societies and any 
price-controlled economy, don't confuse price with cost, which tends to 
be equal only in a market economy) the cost of everything depends on 
supply and demand. And demand depends on a subjective value. And supply 
depends on demand but also on the cost and demand of the required 
factors of production. An so on.
So, in our game, the value of different buildables varies depending on 
each player and depending of the stage of the game. Also, the supply of 
food and shield depends on the stage of the game, the system of 
government choiced, etc etc.
But the cost of everything in freeciv is fixed, and always under the 
criteria of ruleset designers. And this is bad.
I strongly suggest that the cost and price of everything that is 
buildable must be dynamic, and depending on the demand and supply. And 
this includes settlers: the supply of settlers depends on the happiness 
of people (people more happy, settlers more expensive, they are more 
reluctant to leave their city; people more unhappy, settlers cheaper, 
even may be an spontaneous settler unit creation when people are really 
unhappy)
This will balance the game. Obviously requires some "little" changes in 
code.
Per Inge Mathisen wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > Arbitrarily limiting the number of cities will turn players away 
> > > from the
> > > game in disgust.
> >
> >  I disagree; but maybe I'm not understanding you.  Are you
> > saying that players who play Freeciv would stop playing it if the
> > maximum number of players was lowered to 10 (let alone 5)?
>
> The number of players is a game setup (pregame) limit, not an in-game 
> limit. Pregame limitations may be annoying but they do not endanger 
> suspension of disbelief in the same way. The fundamental requirement 
> for in-game limitations is that they be plausible in some way.
> An example of a bad in-game limitation is in the Lord of the Rings RTS 
> game, where, because the graphics engine consumes so much CPU, the 
> limit on how many units you can produce in multiplayer is so low that 
> you have trouble defending and attacking on a large map, no matter how 
> good your production. When you reach the limit, the game just says 
> "too many units" and prevents you from building more.
> > > > - controlled by an option, of course.
> > >
> > > Then it becomes irrelevant.
> >
> >  I don't understand.  It seems like you are saying that
> > choosing the maximum number of players is irrelevant.
>
> It seems like I was talking about cities, not players.
>
> > > > 3) Alliances become essential for many players.
> > >
> > > In multiplayer, alliances are already overpowered.
> >
> >  I don't understand.  Do you mean "overpowered" as in
> > "alliances are too powerful" or as in "alliances are easily
> > defeated"?  (I don't play online; so all that I know about online
> > Freeciv games is gleaned from posts on these lists.)
>
> Too powerful.
>
>   - Per