Accounts e-mail HP

Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end?

Anything about Greatturn in general, not related to a specific match.

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Major Nimrod » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:15 pm

My disagreement remains strongly with regards to Swamps and Jungle tiles.

From Bardo's README regarding his modified Terrain tiles:

Capture.PNG


You'll notice that Swamps, Jungles and Tundra are heavily affected. That's fine, but the ability to transform Jungle and Swamp tiles is heavily changed. In the default ruleset, Swamps and Jungles may be irrigated in order to bring about grasslands, or mined to bring about forests (if memory serves!). Most players are used to that, old or new. However, that's not the case here. Irrigation only increases food on swamps, but there is zero shield or trade production... ever (unless you found a city on the tile). They can not be mined to bring about Forests. These changes require the ability to Transform tiles... which only Geoengineers can do.

Now, this is Bardo's ruleset after all. And he's certainly put his stamp on it. But I wonder... why limit the ability to transform Jungles & Swamps until nearly the end game? It simply doesn't make sense. It would be far more reasonable to allow Engineers the ability to Transform tiles, but perhaps limit the tiles that can be transformed to Jungle, Swamp and Tundra (after all, they are the tiles *most* affected by this ruleset). This would allow incremental transformations to occur. Engineers would not simply be faster workers, they would have the ability to transform some (but not all) tiles until Geoengineers become available (which can transform nearly anything, apparently).

However, this is not the case. Engineers are unable to transform anything, and are simply faster workers. I think that's a waste. Perhaps this was an all or nothing situation, where the coding wouldn't allow selectively determining which transforms a unit can do, and cannot. In which case Bardo must have decided that, in his world, transformations simply were not allowed until the end game. I think that's a shame because these heavily changed tiles remain relatively useless for a long, long time.

It would be interesting if Bardo could weigh in on this issue, and tell us his reasoning behind these decisions.
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:51 pm

Transform is all or nothing ability currently, you can not choose this unit can transform only that. You can however disabled transforms on individual terrains.

With regards to swamps, yeah they kinda suck, so explore better maybe? But for gt9 I do not agree with that at all, resorources are sickly abundant, and peat, is just kick ass resource, as I think I said previously its best IMO, irrigate and you get 2,4,0; yeah trade sucks, but sustainable food on such high prod? Awesome! Jungles seem to suck though. Though again in such a high special game I find all of it irrelevant. Or easily workable around to be more precise.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby kevin55I » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:08 pm

Without terraforming eco war is much much more viable
This is not a joke.
In fact it seems to be a standard tactic. The small poxers fight dirty!
kevin55I
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:57 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Major Nimrod » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:43 pm

If transforms on specific land types is the only way to control it, then I suggest re-instating the ability to modify swamps and jungles without having to resort to using transformations. I'm talking in general, not about GT09 in specifc. This thread is posted under General Discussion, after all.

Bardo (the ruleset author) is active on another thread lately concerning unit tactics. I've pointed him to this particular thread, with the hope of finding out his thoughts about all of this. Looking forward to hearing straight from the horse's mouth :)
"Big Brother is watching you" - George Orwell
"Shh! I'm Hunting Wabbits" - Elmer Fudd
"What a Nimrod" - Bugs Bunny

NIMMY
User avatar
Major Nimrod
Contributor & Co-Admin
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:17 pm

morphles wrote:
How is this "more" rules? It's only a different rule, placing something at an earlier time than it was. Also, please note, this option is perfectly valid in Civ2 and there is nothing wrong with *that* game.

Siple: no terraform, done, all explained.
Terraform: which terrain can be terraformed? Which units can do terraforming? How long does it take for each terrain? What is the result for each terrain?


You are taking a "If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it" approach. It's bureaucratic and designed at inventing artificial problems to prevent something from happening. What I'm taking personally is not the issue of terraforming, it's your conservativism and lack of any proper argument except "it's questionable", "it's difficult", "it's not needed", and all of it regarding an issue that already EXISTS in other rulesets and Civ variations. You are being ridiculous and almost offensive in this.

Well first of more rules says nothing about number meaningful possibilities. It's very easy to come up with silly crap rules that add nothing. Marginal units in games that are never used, cause they suck do not really add anything to game as they have little impact, thus they have no reason to exists and distract players and clutter interface.

How exactly does this apply to this particular case?

As I said games can be insanely complex with very simple rules. Yes it's civ, and even without terraforming there are a lot of possibilities (and some rules/units/stuff could be pruned as they add very little to game) with terraforming or without, and it would also be true for other stuff. One can't seriously believe that such games approach simulation. Empire building is at best theme for civ games, and yes striving for some realism might be nice touch (but in that regard terraforming loses, as its highly unrealistic, esp with default tech level, as opposed to civ2civ3 fusion tech, but even then...), but it is not a must, and amount of "cut corners" quite large. So we are back at game as a game, and in that regard terraforming does not seem to fit well with genre. As described previously.

I'm sorry, what exactly is "described previously"?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby morphles » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:18 pm

Almost getting lazy :)

You are taking a "If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it" approach. It's bureaucratic and designed at inventing artificial problems to prevent something from happening. What I'm taking personally is not the issue of terraforming, it's your conservativism and lack of any proper argument except "it's questionable", "it's difficult", "it's not needed", and all of it regarding an issue that already EXISTS in other rulesets and Civ variations. You are being ridiculous and almost offensive in this.


Actually I'm less conservative than you. You are basically saying it (teraforming) was in game previously, we should keep it! I'm saying that it is needles rule. Less rules again is basically antithesis of bureaucracy and designs by commity, those tend to pile and pile rules upon rules and workarounds for problems cause by previous loads of rules. I'm saying that there is no problem that needs teraforming and it adds nothing, thus there is no reason for it to be in game. I explained my arguments pretty well. Terraforming does not add anything to the game, maybe even makes game more campy/turtly and it is additional rule. You know as some smart people said: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." and "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler". So unless there is good case for rule, terraforming in this case, there is zero need for it. I used it and it was there are pretty weak arguments too.
How exactly does this apply to this particular case?

As explained, I see little addition to gameplay from terraforming. First of there already are transformation by irrigation and mining, thats the most important thing. Second it slightly diminishes the need to find better lands, thus explore and wage wars, basically promoting turtling. Related to that it lessens the impact of GW and NW instead of finding ways to deal with it of pushing faster to end game you can employ same army of workers to drag game needlessly. Also making all terrain malleable means there is less adaptation pressure, again loosing facet of game. Ruleset's author, brado, also expressed his ideas similarly.

kevin55l wrote:This is not a joke.
In fact it seems to be a standard tactic. The small poxers fight dirty!

I do not think that you need to be smallpoxer to apply this, maybe you are pollution immune terrain or some such (say tiny islands or mountains; forests (!) even in civ2civ3).
Also it seems that smallpoxing is quite strongly disadvantaged after all the work that was put in there to take care of that problem, though I would possibly change game a bit more to make it even less viable.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Which party pooper placed land transformation at the end

Postby Corbeau » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:05 pm

morphles wrote:Actually I'm less conservative than you. You are basically saying it (teraforming) was in game previously, we should keep it!

No, I'm saying it gives more options and allows more different play styles. The "it was there before" is only a reply to your claims that "it should be tested a lot", "we can't just add rules that someone likes" and so on.

I'm saying that it is needles rule.

And I'm saying it's not. The only difference is that I'm using arguments.

Less rules again is basically antithesis of bureaucracy and designs by commity, those tend to pile and pile rules upon rules and workarounds for problems cause by previous loads of rules.

Except that you are talking about RL laws where rules prohibit, while I'm talking about a game where rules allow. In RL: more rules->less options. In games: more rules -> more options.

I'm saying that there is no problem that needs teraforming

Of course there is. If a player ends up in unfavourable terrain, he has a problem that can be solved, among other things, by terraforming.

and it adds nothing,

What do you mean? It adds terrforming.

thus there is no reason for it to be in game.

Please, repeat it a few more dozen times.

I explained my arguments pretty well.

What arguments?

Terraforming does not add anything to the game,

It adds terraforming. Gives people one more possible strategy.

maybe even makes game more campy/turtly and it is additional rule.

Didn't you say that this is a losing strategy anyway, that in order to win, you need to be more aggressive?

You know as some smart people said: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." and "Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler".

Sure. Let's all play tic-tac-toe.

So unless there is good case for rule, terraforming in this case, there is zero need for it.

Like I said, we don't need a lot of stuff here, but they all add extra dimensions to the game.

I used it and it was there are pretty weak arguments too.

That's only a reply to your weak arguments.

I see little addition to gameplay from terraforming. First of there already are transformation by irrigation and mining, thats the most important thing.

Because we need only one level of everything, right?

Second it slightly diminishes the need to find better lands, thus explore and wage wars, basically promoting turtling.

No it doesn't. It comes into play at a moment when most of exploration is done. Besides, if a player lets everybody get more land and concentrates on terraforming, it will only end up with others having more land, also terraformed, with him losing in the end.

And seriously, you need to decide is your objection "turtling" or "it's a bad strategy" or "it's unnecessary". Because, if it's all of it, maybe irrigation should be taken out of the game. After all, you should be looking for better lands and so on, not work on what you have.

Related to that it lessens the impact of GW and NW instead of finding ways to deal with it of pushing faster to end game you can employ same army of workers to drag game needlessly.

So the idea is to make the world uninhabitable to force everyone to finish the game already?

Besides, how exactly does terraforming lessen the impact of NW/GW?

Also making all terrain malleable means there is less adaptation pressure, again loosing facet of game. Ruleset's author, brado, also expressed his ideas similarly.

The thing is, terraforming costs turns and resources. It will take a LOT of time to finish it. Some people won't even bother. So, no, you're generalising.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron