WesCiv & WesCol

[kobe]

When I build a city in 6p Colonial WesCiv and then end the turn, I sometimes get said I had won.
But in fact there wasn't any fight and so there where about 4 cities.

Do you know which reason this could have?

Thanks
kobe

Were you playing by yourself or were all the players on the same team/allied? The game ends when all enemies are defeated as per usual.

They didn't even meet each other, so they weren't allied.

[Coaxke]

Do you have a replay, or any kind of save?

[Coaxke]

Version 3.3 has been released! Changes can be found in the changelog in the first post.

[kobe]

When I build a city in 6p Colonial WesCiv and then end the turn, I sometimes get said I had won.
But in fact there wasn't any fight and so there where about 4 cities.

Do you know which reason this could have?

Thanks
kobe

In 3.3 it doesn't happen anymore.

[Coaxke]

Hmm... I'm not sure what the problem was then.

WesCiv will be on hold for a while but I will try to make it available in 1.8 and hopefully continue development next year.

[SlowThinker]

I am preparing some ideas about basic principles (iddle workers, market), but I am too busy these days. Later.

[Coaxke]

Okay, I've been developing a better way for workers where you don't need to place a "worker" unit so the map will be less crowded.

[SlowThinker]

Coaxke, I have thought about your idea of the removal of the iddle workers from the game system (i.e. the wood-metal would be transformed to UP/science/gold directly, without work of "the iddle workers").

This is my view:
Pros:
It simplifies the game system and removes a lot of micromanagement.
(But this represents also some Civ-like athmosfere is lost).

Cons:
Number of commodities on the market would drop from 2 to 3 and the market would become too simple:
With 2 commodities the player only watches which commodity is more expensive. With 3 commodities the basic situations on the market are much more numerous:
one expensive, one middle, one cheap (6 combinations)
two equal and cheap, one expensive (3 combinations)
two equal and expensive, one cheap (3 combinations)
all equal.
Also with iddle workers cities may survive also in barren (for example polar) areas, they can live on work, and without resources. (But they will have serious problems if prices of resources go much higher than prices of work...)

My conclusion is: let iddle workers in the game system.
In order not to be forced to adjust cities each turn, I propose the idea in my next post.

[SlowThinker]

In my games most micromanagement is due to trade: One city has wood surplus, another one needs food, so I sell wood from the 1st city on the global market and so I can buy food for the 2nd city.
So each turn I go through all cities and in almost all cities I make a trade.

I got this idea that would lower the micromanagement due to trade:

Divide trade to world market and local markets (markets of individual civilizations).
There would be not only global/world stocks and stocks of individual cities, but also stocks of individual civilizations (national stocks).

............. <- Global market -> ..................<- Local markets ->.................
World stock ......................National stocks .......................Stocks of cities


Global market: The global market would work similar way as did now, but it would be represented by exchanges between the national stock and the world stocks.

Local market: Cities would not have the access to the global stocks anymore, they could exchange resources with the national stocks only. In order to get access to the national stocks the city would have to build an improvement ("marketplace"?). The "national market" wouldn't use gold, cities would just send resources to the national stocks and withdraw resources from the stocks.
The exchange of resources would be
a) manual (example: "city of Paris: send 2 food to the national stocks now")
b) automated (example: "city of Paris: send 2 food to the national stocks every turn")
There would be no penalty/losses on the national market. (another option: to burden a penalty to trade of cities with a basic type of improvement (marketplace), and to make trade of cities with an advanced type of improvement (stock exchange) costless).


(A note:
concerning improvements: I will think about the improvements after this point is solved)