<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >

"Per I. Mathisen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=37592 >
>
>On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, (Eddie_Anderson) wrote:
>>    Since this discussion last summer, I've been thinking some more
>
>Thanks for opening up this topic again. I will soon have more time to look 
>at such ideas.

    You're welcome.   It seemed like the right time.


>> 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.

>I have been thinking along these lines myself, inspired a great deal by 
>the way the board game Settlers of Catan manages the victory condition. 

    Good idea.  Many times the designers of European board/card
games do a good job of creating well balanced games.

>However, I think the number of points should be very low, preferably 10 by 
>default, to make the number seem more meaningful and close, and it should 
>in most cases be possible to steal points from opponents to create 
>counter-strategies (just like in Settlers of Catan).
>
>To quote from a design document I never made public (some parts may not 
>apply):
>
...
>
>The following may give victory points (and other effects) in default 
>ruleset:
>
>     * Largest space station, 1 point.
>     * Longest continuous road, 1 point.
>     * Longest continuous wall, 1 point. Only need to pay half as much to
>       barbarians to appease them.
>     * Each defeated enemy civilization, 1 point.
>     * Defeated barbarians, 1 point each time.
>     * Largest palace, 1 point. There are several versions of the Palace
>       building, in different sizes, just like Settlers of Catan.
>
>     * First circumnavigation, 1 point.
>     * First to philosophy, 1 point.
>     * First to cure for cancer, 1 point.
>     * Possession of Eiffel Tower, 1 point.
>     * Greatest Expedition, 1 point. Magellan's < Darwin's < Apollo
>       Project.
>
>An early victory with five victory points is possible by getting for 
>example longest road, defeating one civilization, getting first to 
>philosophy, producing Magellan's and building the largest palace."
>
>This gives a natural way of doing shorter games, without having an 
>entirely artificial end year and the artificial and very hard to sabotage 
>game scores as a way of appointing a winner.

    That sounds good.  It offers players the opportunity to earn
points in a variety of ways (so that everybody does not have to
pursue the same strategy in every game).

    I assume that that means that the points for longest road,
largest palace, etc. could change hands many times during the course
of a game.  Is that correct?

    If so, then a player's Worker/Settler/Engineer might be able to
gain the last needed victory point by completing a road on a tile
that links two existing roads together.  Likewise, a player could
conceivably push himself "over the top" by "rush buying" a bigger
palace.  Is that correct?

>>       Another potential advantage is that the AI can be programmed
>>   to focus on accumulating points rather than trying to engineer
>>   a conquest.
>
>It would certainly give the AI a shorter future horizon to focus on, which 
>could be a good thing, and war in the game would become more a means to 
>various ends (primarily to sabotage victory points) rather than all-out 
>conquest, although the latter would still be possible.

    Exactly.  The "conquer everybody" option is still in the rules,
but this gives the AI some more practical, short term goals to
pursue instead.


>>   d) Eliminate unlimited movement on railroads.
>
>I would be in favour, but it is not something I would consider important.

   I agree; it's not critical.

>> Plus, (I assume that) teaching the AI to use unlimited movement wisely 
>> is difficult.
>
>Not at all.

    I figured that it was the difference between choosing from among
~30 potential destination tiles and choosing from among 100, 150, or
more (for each unit that is on a long railroad).  Then multiply that
by the number of turns and by the number of units that enter (or
remain on) that railroad during those turns.

>>   e) Normalize the effect of most happiness buildings and effects
>>      (all except martial law?).
>>
>>      E.g. If a temple can turn an unhappy citizen into a content
>>      one, then maybe that temple should also be able to turn a
>>      content citizen into a happy one.  The way it works now is
>>      somewhat counter-intuitive.
>
>If you did that, you could just as well remove all the unhappy/happy 
>effects, and replace them with buildings that produced luxuries. The 
>non-transitiveness (if I can call it that) of happy-buildings is the only 
>thing that separates them from luxury production. (Well, that, and more 
>esoterically, at what step in the transformation process from unhappy to 
>happy they apply, but this hidden complexity should not be an argument in 
>favour of them, far to the contrary.)

    I think that Martial law should stay as a one-sided effect (i.e.
it works only on the "unhappy" side of the "contented" line).  And,
though I'm not sure about this, maybe the Courthouse and Police
Station effects should be one-sided too.  In contrast, the religion
buildings and the colosseum should work on both sides of the
"contented" line (IMO).

    Above all, I think that the order of application (of these
effects) should be arranged so that it doesn't offend common sense.
:-)

>>   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.
>
>I sympathize with this idea, but I suspect this would be a performance 
>killer with the way city production is calculated currently.

    I expected that too, but I didn't see much difference.  Granted,
this was on small maps.  OTOH, my code was pretty crude and it could
probably be made more efficient by a better programmer than me.

>>   i) Eliminate trade routes established by caravan.
>
>I agree. Not sure if I agree with your replacement idea, though.

    Fair enough.  But keep in mind that this could cost relatively
little if it reuses the PF data that was generated for the waste-by-
distance calculations.

-Eddie



_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to