[Freeciv] Re: ICS : Are map resources part of the problem?

["R. Miller" <richere@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello, Luis,

With all due respect, you seem to be assuming, or seem to know,
that "a game that simulates real life" is what people want FreeCiv to be.
Is that what the designers and players of FreeCiv really want?

To quote Sid Meier from an interview reported on the web (www.apolyton.net, 
I think)
        "When a choice has to be made between realism and game play, game 
play will win."
(The quote is from memory, so may not be word for word exact).

I'm not saying that his word should be taken as graved in stone,
but I think that, considering his track record, we really should consider 
his thoughts.
Is realism really that important in FreeCiv?

Robaire

At 09:19 01-02-12 +0000, Luis Palma wrote:
> I agree with Mike.
> If you want a game tha simulates real life you just can't prevent ICS by 
> itself, because, in fact, it is possible in real life. It is on the other 
> way very, very difficult to maintain nowadays a big empire. Remember that 
> when you go to another continent you must face with local natives that 
> have their own believes. Sooner or later they will want to overcome your 
> power with theirs. By then revolution and independence will make your 
> empire fall.
> Luis Palma
>
> Em Sun, 04 Feb 2001 07:12:22 -0500 Mike Jing <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Hi Robaire,
>
> You are correct, that is certainly part of the problem, although not the
> most important part IMHO.   I also favor fewer spacials, especially whales.
> But don't be surprised when you find out most players hate this idea.  In
> any case, ICS works just fine in Civ2 as well, so this is not the main
> cause.
>
> The root of the problem, as been discussed many times before, is that the
> free city center gives small cities a big advantage over slightly bigger
> cities, especially at the early stages of the game.  Small cities also grow
> faster, so fast expansion with a lot of small cities makes a lot of sense.
> Now, there is nothing wrong with expansion per se, but it is wrong, IMNSHO,
> that you can expand forever without any kind of significant penalty.  It is
> simply bad for game balance.  Because the benefit of city improvements comes
> about rather slowly, it is simply more cost effective to build settilers and
> found new cities than to try to develop existing ones.  It is also
> rediculously easy to wage war in Freeciv.  In fact, there is absolutely no
> way to ensure peace.  Therefore, anyone who attempts to build larger cities
> will be overrun by an ICSer way before the power of large cities are
> realized.
>
> The solution, therefore, is to curb expansion and warfare.  The former can
> be done by a happiness penelty on empire size, and the latter through the
> senate.  This will make large number of small cities a practical
> impossibility, while giving civ builders more time to grow their cities to
> bigger sizes.
>
> War is so popular because you have nothing to lose by going to war and
> everything to gain.  You don't have to switch to Monarchy or Communism to
> wage war, because there is no senate, so you don't suffer in science for
> being militarily aggressive.  It helps you to expand even more while at the
> same time weakens your enemy.  No wonder ICS+war is the order of the day in
> Freeciv.
>
> In summary, until there is a way to limit the endless expansion and to
> ensure peace, ICS just won't go away.  What many people don't get though, is
> that Freeciv is much more than just a war game.  And until they do, any
> change in the right direction will be strongly opposed.  You can bet on it.
>
> Mike
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> O e-mail preferido dos portugueses http://www.portugalmail.pt