[Freeciv-Dev] Project goals - Game balance

[banjo <banjo@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Part II: Game Balance

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx feels that the map or the empires or the game is 
too big.
saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> I believe that supporting 30 players (and the large map that is
> needed to support that many players) is the most problematic feature
> of FreeCiv.  Why?  One equation sums it up:
> Large map + Large number of players = lots and lots of choices

These are options that can be set at the console.

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Lots and lots of choices means that each decision is less
> important.  But isn't making resource management decisions what
> makes 4x games fun?  When such decisions become so numerous that
> they become a chore instead of an interesting choice, then the
> game has failed (as a form of entertainment).

One of the things i like about 4x games is their depth, which is why
i wrote rndCiv, i found that once i had plumbed freeciv's depths for
the umpteenth time, i wanted to make it richer and more complex. What
i was after was the feeling of coming to the game for the first time,
being overwhelmed with strategic and tactical choices, and having to
think very carefully about what i was doing.

Of course repetitive resource management decisions are a chore, that
is what the cma is for.  Build lists would be nice, although not too
useful for rndCiv - where every game has different units.

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I once tried altering the cost of a settler to 9999 shields
> (in the ruleset file). What happened? The AI refused to use any
> of its precious initial settlers to found a city. :-)

Try setting the settlers flag to NoBuild, i haven't tried this but
it should work.

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Your first post mentioned multi-player games with up to 30
> players.  I proposed a limitation on city construction as a way
> to limit the size of Freeciv games (in order to make all the
> Freeciv design issues more manageable).

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Arbitrarily limiting the number of cities will turn players away from
> the game in disgust.

I agree, and if it were added at all it should be a server option.

Benedict Adamson wrote:
> I think we should also decide whether we really want to support
> different rulesets. Proper AI support for really different rulesets,
> in my opinion, is broken and requires considerable work.

I use a different ruleset every time i play. If you read the Civ forums, 
most of them want a new game, new modpacks, new units new wonders, etc.
This is a sign of success, it shows people love the game so much they'll
devote time to making and seeking out expansions and variations.

Doom was a success partly because they allowed people to make and share
their own wads.  I am biased here because i think rndCiv is a whole new
and exciting way to generate novelty.

But on a different level, i think that the ai is weaker *because* there
is only one ruleset it's tested against.  rndciv exposes many ai issues
that are not so noticeable playing the default ruleset. As an ai layman
(i read many ai papers though, yah citeseer), it seems better to evolve
in an changing environment, you get to hone the truly general aspects &
not get caught in local maxima.  I also suspect that this would simplify
the code, pushing more of the specializations out to config files, like
the units.ruleset "roles" field, and the recent ai.ruleset proposal.


markstedt@xxxxxxxxx said:
> I agree that the virtually limitless expanse of late game empires (a
> result of rampant expansion combined with the conquering of
> neighbours) makes actually playing a game to the end a chore.

ah, this is the main issue i'd like to discuss.

Historically no country (or even culture) has conquered the whole world.
And current contender withstanding, it's unlikely one ever will.

There are many reasons why, Imperial Overstretch, the many ganging up on
the one to protect themselves, rebellious provinces etc. It seems likely
that the only way it could happen is a cold war between two super powers
that enabled them to absorb all the minor powers and then duke it out.

So while freeciv is a fun and even mildly accurate game, it becomes very
unrealistic during the end game. This is of course a design decision Sid
Meier made for gameplay and commercial reasons, he knew his audience was
wannabe global overlords.

So, i have some proposals to change this.,..

# More Partisans:
 In rndCiv it's annoying that only one Partisan unit can be defined, the
rndCiv games can reflect all sorts of genera, and there are many ways it
would be nice to be able to define different sorts of Partisans.

Also, Partisans slow down the ability of an Empire to rampage, and units
behind it's lines make take back the recently overrun cities.

So i would like to propose that multiple units (including Refugee units)
be able to have the Partisan flag (Currently it's a role, but it should
be a flag).  Then if a city gets to emit partisans, it emits a mixture
of any possible (ie we've the required Tech & the unit is not  obsolete) 
partisan units.  If non are possible it emits none, it doesn't crash.
# More Empire Size Effects
 Currently the main limiting factor are the government effects...
(Empire_Size_Mod and Empire_Size_Step). Empire_Size_Base is mentioned
in the doc/README.effects file but i can't find any reference elsewhere,
could some please clarify this for me.

 In reality Empire_Size_* are not too much of a hindrance to anyone who
wants to rule the world.  But they could be, they could be far tougher,
and maybe they could be added together (ive never tried this).  Could
you have a general (not attached to any gov type) Empire_Size_Mod and 
Empire_Size_Step effect, that applied to all gov's over and above their
own settings? Output_Waste_By_Distance is another effect that can be used.

What i would like to see however are new effect types & names, The type
'Size' with the names 'Cities', 'Population' and 'Area'.  This allows
for penalties to be applied based upon what *percentage* of the total
you own.  This is to handle the different size maps.

I would like to be able make civil war more likely as the size of a 
nation increases.
So for example you could put a penalty on a player that has more than 
50% of the worlds cities.  This isn't fully worked out, but is another
tool for limiting the global conqueror.

# Revolting Cities Secede
 Cities far enough away from the capital, that have been rebelling for
more than one (or two?) turns may secede as a group creating a new
nation.  This simulates colonial independence. Controlled by effects
and server options, it will only happen if the players want it.

Of course to fully simulate colonies, the player should be able to
suck resources out of far away colonies, draining them dry and also
giving them good reasons to rebel.  This mechanism along with more
Partisans would allow a more historically realistic game.

# Revolutions Annul Alliances
 The Kingdom of Baloney undergoes a revolution and becomes the Peoples
Socialist Republic of Baloney, and yet all of the old kings alliances
with all of his old dynastic blue blood relatives remains intact.

No Way.  Currently the game punishes revolutions with a few turns of
anarchy, and currently the alliance system is way too rigid, nations
can be allies or enemies for thousands of years.  Making a revolution
reset that nations diplomatic situation is one way of making the game
more fluid.

Alliances are too powerful, the current way alliances and teams work
makes more sense in a scenario like Lord of the Rings, or an Axis and
Allies WWII game, than a multi-thousand year epic.  The ai should be
more fickle or demanding in it's diplomatic dealings.

saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Sounds good. How about adding a separate set of conditions
> (at higher values) to serve as "end of game" (or victory)
> conditions?

I'm all for more options, especially if they can be server options
or defined in rulesets somewhere (effects seems the right place).
The new options outlined above would make it far harder to conquer
the world, and therefore rulesets will need to be able to define new
and exciting ways to win.

All of the above is IMHO, and reflects the sort of game/simulation
of alternative history that i am interested in.

-banjo