[Freeciv] Re: Some questions

["Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I've been skimming to lightly to pick up what ICS stands for, but I suspect 
> I could guess.  I played on the civserver a couple of times and got 
> thrashed.  I haven't been back, because the style of play required to win 
> doesn't correspond to my idea of what a "history" game should be.  I prefer 
> a more reflective style of play.
ICS = Infinite City Strategy, Sprawl, or Sleaze, take your pick.  It's a 
term used by Civ2 players which is equivalent to what you often see on 
Freeciv servers these days.
Some people have argued that Freeciv have nothing or little to do with 
history, which I happen to disagree.  In fact, IMHO, the historical aspect 
of it is one important reason why it is so much fun.
> I wonder if you could break some canned strategies by adding some 
> randomization to things like the cost of researching a given
> strategy? For example, let the cost in the data file be the >statistically 
> expected cost, but let the actual cost for a given player fall in a 
> gaussian distribution around that median, to be determined when s/he starts 
> building it.  For maximum effect, don't
> tell the player what that cost is -- just have the client keep on
> displaying the time to the *expected* completion, as if that's what the 
> royal advisors are promising.
> A similar effect could be applied to the construction of buildings and 
> units, as well.
> Unfortunately, this might give luck too big an influence on the game.
Generally speaking, random events are not welcome to most players, and 
certainly do not help to level the playing field in most cases.  Ever wonder 
why many players prefer to play with no huts?  There is something appealing 
about your proposal, but I suspect it wouldn't work, due to the exact reason 
you pointed out.
> Another option would be to give you a discount for exploring the breadth of 
> the tech tree, and a surcharge for exploring the depth, so that players who 
> wanted to rush out and get that One True Technology would find decreasing 
> returns on their investments.
There is actually something to this effect in Civ2, where you are sometimes 
forced to branch out in the tech tree.  The exact pattern hasn't been worked 
out, AFAIK, and it could lead to anomalies that would seriously delay the 
discovery of an imprortant tech.  For these reasons, it has not been 
implemeted in Freeciv.
> A third, perhaps easier, option would be to fix it with a modpack.  If a 
> tech is too powerful, add more prereqs.  If a government it too 
> advantageous, reduce its benefits.  If a unit is too powerful, weaken
> it or make it more expensive.  Such a modpack might require continual
> tweaking, since new exploits will be found as you fix the most lucrative 
> ones that now exist, but after a few iterations it might at
> least level the playing field so that multiple strategies have equal 
> chances of winning.
Freeciv is supposed to be exactly what you have described here.  Many 
parameters are already easily tweakable in the rulesets, and more 
generalizations are on the way.  In fact, some units, e.g. elepahnts and 
crusaders, and the fundamentalism government are currently omitted from the 
game because they are considered too powerful.  I, for one, hope they would 
be put back in someday after being properly tweaked.
> Naturally, some players like the existing system, so any such changes
> should be game options.
The current system is still very much a work in progress, so changes should 
be expected and even welcomed when carefully considered.
Mike


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