Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: December 2000:
[Freeciv] Re: Some questions
Home

[Freeciv] Re: Some questions

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv] Re: Some questions
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:10:53 -0500
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

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




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