#1 2020-07-16 12:35:01

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 987

Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring

Now, there are people who play Civ as a military game where everything else is secondary or simply used for military purposes. This post is not for them.


So, when you get down to the core of it, in absolutely all Freeciv games so far it has been the case that victory means military victory. Alliance victory, score ending, spaceship ending, there is even supposed to be some culture scoring in 2.6, but absolutely every one of these things depends on military conquest. Official in-game score is calculated by adding population points and military units and kills (also great wonders - as few of them there are - and techs, with most players being more or less equal). Every aspect: economy, production, science, that influences the score in the end, is heavily dependent on the size of the empire, and the size of the empire is heavily dependent on military conquest.

Every game aspect is viewed through the prism of two things: playability and realism. And this scoring is problematic in both of there aspects.

Regarding playability, this funnels all aspects of the game into one: military conquest. If you are not successful with this, you are not playing well. Which narrows down a wide variety of choices into one.

Secondly, this is very unrealistic. In today's world we see a number of countries being more or less successful, and their size having some influence, but far from crucial. The best example is Germany: having lost every single war in the last 100 years, it is now the leader of the wesern world. Also, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, maybe Portugal, all of them being at the top with successfull management. In current Civ configuration, they would be considered losers, while empires like USA and Russia would be considered winners.

Any idea how to change this? I'd go in two directions: adjusting the ruleset so that size matters less when you run your country, but also modifying the score with the values that re made public at the end of the game. But I'd also like to hear some opinions.

Offline

#2 2020-07-30 12:59:01

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 1,783

Re: Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring

One way to do that would be a new scoring system. One that would calculate you the average of the cities you have so that way it wouldn't matter how many cities you have.

Maybe better if it would pick your 10 best cities and calculate it from that. The score could be calculated for each turn so it wouldn't matter too much if you lose cities in the end. The score would be a nice one no mattter what.

Offline

#3 2020-07-30 19:54:56

Corbeau
Administrator
Posts: 987

Re: Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring

Hm, 10 best cities! Didn't think of that. I am reluctant to use "average Whatever per city" because that can really hurt big players. (VERY ROUGHLY, the end score amounts to AX+B where X is number of cities and A and B are whatever, so dividing the whole thing with X would result in "bigger X -> smaller score"... on the second thought, it would be good to verify this with real numbers...)

Calculating score each turn would require a script or something. At this moment I am trying to use something that can be implemented right away without the score-keeper doing this as a daily job.

On the other hand, "10 best cities" would also require coding...

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB