Re: [Human-beings-discuss] preliminary rules

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

Sébastien Ducoulombier <address@hidden> writes:

> A long long time ago, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote :

Late is better than never :).

> > Establishing ambassies in other civs accelerate the scientists'
> > work. You may exchange discoveries between civs if you have an
> > embassy and if you're in peace; in such a case, the discovery
> > will be made much faster (but not immediately).
> 
> I like that. Would it be possible to adjust the aim from "you must destroy 
> your opponent(s) capital city" to "you must conquier the world" ?
> That would make the whole game sound more positive. You may win without 
> fighting, by collaboration rather than competition.

It depends what you mean by that. I also like, from a moral point
of view, the fact that a civ can "win" by real collaboration,
peace and love, etc, but I think that it's not compatible with
one aim of HB which is to have the starcraft like enjoyable
fights. I think that if we try to make the game winnable without
fighting, we'd destroy the fighting interest.
 
> > Here is the list of discoveries, with the dependancies:
> >
> > Fire
> > Peasanry
> > Fishing [Peasanry]
> > (...)
> > Nuclear power [Plastics, Relativity, Computing]
> > Biochemicals [Chemicals, Computing]
> > Spaceships [Flying, Nuclear power]
> 
> Photocaptors [Biochemicals]
> Solar energy [Photocaptors]
> Hydrogen Engines [Biochemicals]
> HydroSolar Engineering [Solar energy, Hydrogen Engines]
> Fast, Clean & Cheap Transports [HydroSolar Engineering]
> Universal Access to Information [Fast & Cheap transports, Computing]
> Transparent Politics [Universal Access to Information]

Hmm, some of these are real nice, I think I'll keep most.

> > The first political system is Despotism. When Religion is
> > discovered, it changes to Monarchy. When Industrialization is
> > discovered, it changes to Democracy.
> 
> Democracy upgrades to Anarchy when Transparent Politics is discovered.
> Maybe "Anarchy" is too hard sounding. Let's call it something else. Liberty ? 
> Utopia ? Orgasm ? :)

We have to prevent from setting up rules which we find nice from
our moral point of view, and don't forget that the first aim is
to have an enjoyable game, not a moral/ethic game.
 
> When you have reached "Utopia" (let's say)
> - remaining enemy cities nearby secessionate and join your civ, as a 
> "contagious domino falls".
> - your civ can survive even without your capital city. There is no need to 
> protect it more that the other big cities.
> - your people will refuse to attack. They may fight (defend themselves) only 
> if they get attacked.

Hmm, that proposition sounds fun, but I think it would break the
starcraft-like fighting side of the game :(.


Thanks for answering!


-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/