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

On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, (Eddie_Anderson) wrote:
>> 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.

Don't forget the Australians! They produce some of the best board games 
there are.

>> 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?

Of course, that is the point.

>    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?

Yes. This is a viable strategy in Settlers, but a high risk one, since it 
is easy for another player to sabotage it so effectively that you will not 
(perhaps ever) be able to complete the action. For example, if you build 
two road pieces that you intend to put together to produce the longest 
road, another player can block it by putting his own road or soldier in 
the middle. Or you could save up lots of resources, but if someone rolls 
the robber, you might lose most of them.

In a similar vein, I think all possibilities to "rush" at victory 
conditions should be high risk to opponent's counter-strategies.

However - this depends on other players being able to see what you are 
doing, which is very hard in Freeciv at the moment. There needs to be a 
way to correct that.

>> 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.

This is made very complicated by the way CM(A) calculates benefits. We 
will need to cache it somehow, or things will get rather ugly. Or things 
will get inaccurate.

I would be interested in seeing how you programmed it, though. So please 
post a patch, even if it is not pretty ;)

   - Per

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to