<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
On 3/5/07, (Eddie_Anderson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
> Since this discussion last summer, I've been thinking some more
> about what Freeciv could be. I've reached a few tentative
> conclusions. Some of the changes are simple; some are far-reaching.
> I've already done some work (on my own copy of Freeciv) to
> implement some of these ideas, but it has been several months since
> I last worked on it. So I figured that I would publish these ideas
> to see if anyone else was interested in them.
> Here are the ideas:
> 1) Add a new victory condition to Freeciv that is based on points.
> I propose that a fourth victory condition be added to Freeciv:
> d) The first player to X points wins.
> One of the biggest advantages of this is that it makes
> Freeciv games scalable. E.g. if you want a short game, play to
> 500 points; if you want a longer game, play 2000 points; etc.
It is an interesting idea, but using a lower number would make
many games end before any contact is made, so the point limit
would have to be around the equivalent of two islands with
fully built up cities plus 80 technologies.
> Another potential advantage is that the AI can be programmed
> to focus on accumulating points rather than trying to engineer
> a conquest. Presumably the AI can be programmed to compare
> numbers more effectively than it can be programmed to build and
> move units.
This won't help. AI is not that simple.
> 2) Award points for things besides WoWs and techs.
> a) Award points for firsts like "50 points for the first player
> to get two size 3 cities".
> There could be multiple tiers. (E.g. size 3 cites, size 5
> cities, size 8 cities, etc.) There could also be multiple
> bonuses at each tier. E.g. There could be two bonuses for
> size 3:
> .a bonus for the first civ with *one* size 3 city and
> .a separate bonus for the first civ with two size 3 cities
> - and the civ that wins one bonus on that tier is
> ineligible to win the other.
This sounds like rules for a boardgame, not a computer game. You
already receive points for your population. Players already hate
the discrete advantages gained by players who complete wonders,
they would surely hate this too.
> b) Award 1 point on every turn for each surplus happy citizen
> c) Award points on every turn to the player who has the largest
> city in the game.
> d) others
> a) Reduce the government corruption penalty for Despotism and
> Anarchy to 10%.
> Both Despotism and Anarchy impose penalties at the tile level.
> For tiles like fish, that represents a 33% penalty of its food
> production. I don't understand why there is an additional 37%
> penalty (plus a distance penalty) on top of that.
Despotism is not meant to be a preferred government, just
research the Republic. Despotism reduces upkeep for units, so it also
offers an advantage over the republic in exchange.
> b) Revise the terrain improvement costs.
> c) Eliminate Rapture growth
You can use the server settings "rapturedelay" to change that.
> This has been discussed before. Rapture Growth makes
> Granaries and Pyramids almost useless. Plus, (I assume that)
> teaching the AI to do Rapture Growth efficiently (with many
> cities) is difficult.
> d) Eliminate unlimited movement on railroads.
> e) Normalize the effect of most happiness buildings and effects
> (all except martial law?).
This takes the edge off the Hanging Gardens and makes that
wonder even less usefull in comparision.
> f) For each civ, only its top 3 cities count.
This would make it useless for the player to conquer opponents.
Players already prefer sitting on cozy islands on their own,
this rule would make it worse.
> g) Use PF distances for calculating the distance-based corruption
> and waste penalties.
> I've experimented with this and it works. The code was copied
> from Per's "Wonder City" code and I don't understand all of
> it. But when you build roads, it *does* reduce the losses due
> to distance from the capital.
Very interesting idea, but how does it affect server load if
you have 20+ cities on one continent or 100+ cities in the game?
> h) Eliminate ZOC effects caused by units with 0 offense (e.g.
> Explorers, Diplomats, Caravans).
I fully agree to this.
> i) Eliminate trade routes established by caravan.
> Caravans will still be used for building WoWs. But the entire
> trade route system (3 routes per city, caravan has to find a
> path to the target city, then both cities get a permanent
> benefit, etc.) should be scrapped, IMO.
IMHO, you got it backwards, using caravans to build wonders to
me feels feels awkward even if unavoidable, not the other way
around. Considering that different rules for traderoutes are
currently popular that promote rapture growth, I would wish
for more parameters to tune traderoute revenue till parameters are
found that again encourage the sending of caravans to other countries.
> In its place, trade bonuses should be awarded to every city.
> The amount of the bonus should be based on city size, the PF
> distance to surrounding cities, etc.
Distance to surrounding cities means an operation of about
O(x*x*log x) effort and would slow things down on continents
with x>20 cities.
> I hope that one of the effects of these changes will be to make
> alternate strategies viable in the early stages of the game. IIRC,
> as Freeciv is now, the only viable strategy is researching another
> form of government as quickly as possible. That's because the waste
> and corruption (and distance) penalties of Despotism are dispropor-
> tionately large.
Researching a different government ASAP is only possible when
you are not sharing a continent with another hostile civ. I miss this
kind of game where one was glad to have a phalanx sittting on a
mountain to block passage of enemies.
> But with the changes proposed above, it should be possible to
> pursue a strategy of rapid city growth (by picking city sites with
> high food production potential), researching pottery, and building a
> granary. Then you can collect points on every turn for having the
> largest city (or cities) in the game.
Which is only fun if you think about freeciv as a game of
one versus the AI. It wouldn't be fun for the second-placed
non-AI player to not collect points.
> WoWs like Hanging Gardens, Oracle, and Pyramids will be more
> valuable if Freeciv changes this way. Perhaps Lighthouse should
> give a +1 happiness effect for coastal cities in your civ (to
> compensate for its recent loss of its "protects Triremes" effect).
You are right that the early wonders are useless as it is now with
fast rapture growth, but the only other ways to get a quick online
game going without republic and rapture would be to reduce the size
of the foodbox or to reduce the cost of granaries, and probably also
to make the republic harder to research.
Here is an idea I got after looking at
You could simple remove rapture growth from Republic, so that the
Democracy was the first and only government to allow rapture growth.
> Connecting cities with roads will be very important for
> increasing trade bonuses and decreasing corruption losses. Wars
> will be even more disruptive to your economy and they may disrupt
> your neighbors' economies as well.
Connecting cities already is important for movement of settlers
> And, perhaps most important, the AI's calculations may be made
> simpler (because the AI can measure the potential benefits of its
> choices in terms of victory points (instead of just units or cities
> or hitpoints or gold or science points or happy / content / unhappy
> / angry citizens, etc.)).
It is not that easy, AI also has to do research that has military not
> What do you think?
Freeciv-dev mailing list