#1 ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 14.10.2017 02:53:40

Replies: 3

The early game in SG1 is now about over.
Much quicker than normal, because we started with some developed cities and some science.
So time for some comments on this stage of the game.

1/.  Food and science are too fast. Growth is way too fast.

2/. The early combat is seriously degraded from normal freeciv and pre-the-new-admin longturn games.

Warriors are now essentially useless, because they are relatively way more expensive than their opponents. (phalanx, horse, archer).
The new version of longturn is like playing chess without the pawns.

Catapults are also rendered useless because of the lack of veterancy, and the movement restrictions.

3/. The power factors for promoted workers are way too high.
A green worker can move 2 tiles and do 2 units of work.
A vet worker can move 2 1/3 tiles  and do 3 units of work.
A vv worker can move 2 2/3 tiles  and do 4 units of work.
An elite worker can move 3 tiles  and do 5 units of work.

The increase in ability to work should be proportional to the increase in movement.

4/. Revolution length is set to 1. It should be 2 to provide some penalty and risk to changing governments.

#2 Re: ScenarioGame 2 » Plans for the second scenario game » 30.09.2017 11:47:31

wieder wrote:

...The techs should probably be set to very close to WW1 level when the game starts and research should be really slow...

For a scenario game like this I would like science to be turned off entirely.
I would also like city growth and settlers to be removed. The war is an ugly, slaughter - a battle of attrition - it's not about growth.

I agree the main alliances should be the triple alliance versus the entente cordiale.
Each of these 6 countries should have a king unit, that cannot move.
Three are in Paris, and three are in Berlin. When one of those two cities falls the game is ended.

Start with a phony war - 16 turns of cease fire - no fighting allowed. Time to position your troops and plan.
Revolution length is set to the maximum. Break the ceasefire and your government falls. Then 20 turns of anarchy.

Create 2 lines of special forts along the Franco - German border. On the French side call them 'Verdun' or 'Maginot' forts. Perhaps 'Siegfried' on the other side.
These forts have all the normal properties of a fortress, but also add a happiness bonus to the holder.
As each fort is lost, your cities will become more and more unhappy.
Capturing a fort from the enemy doesn't transfer the  happiness bonus (unless it was originally theirs and has been recaptured, in which case it restores it.).
This would be a great game for tunnel troops and tunnel bombs.

At the start of the game, the main cities should be set to be content.
The war will probably end due to civil war in one of the major countries, not because of military victory.

The winners in the game will almost certainly be those who didn't take part in the fighting.

#3 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The winning conditions and game specific rules for SG1 » 29.09.2017 11:06:36

Wieder - Thanks for the explanation. I will take this into account while I consider how to play this game.

#4 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 29.09.2017 10:59:01

If SG2 were to be based on the WW1 map, which I really like the look of, then it would really need a very specific ruleset to make it interesting.
Otherwise the Americans could just  grow / race science and win the game without ever fighting.

#5 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 29.09.2017 03:05:07

Sketlux - I really like this map, and I like the idea of playing scenario games. Thanks for creating this.

However I worry that the ruleset and victory conditions are less than ideal.
I would like to play a game where multiple strategies are possible, and if played well each have a chance of winning - combat, growth, diplomacy.
Also if possible the ruleset would try to mimic the conditions that really existed at the time the scenario is set in.

#6 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The winning conditions and game specific rules for SG1 » 29.09.2017 02:50:40

Please clarify -

"The players can win the game by building the Bismarck Tower or by building the space ship"

Does this mean all those who are still alive and formally allied to the nation that created the Tower or landed the spaceship get the victory.
If so what benefit is the victory if all the players will be ranked by score.

Standard longturn gameplay would be for a player at the back to focus on science while those at the front focus on attack / defence.
In the standard rules all the allied players would share the victory equally.

Is the focus on score a deliberate policy for this game? If so why?

#7 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 26.09.2017 15:39:11

The file SG1.serv has set revolen=1 which would be 1 turn.
The savegame however has "revolen",0,0 which means random.

In the test game I got 1.

I much prefer this setting to be 2. It provides a much greater penalty / risk to frequent changes of government. With the setting 1 you can go into anarchy just before TC and be out of it a few seconds later. Having it set to 2 means you must spend at least a full day (the longturn day is 23 hours I think) and 1 second in anarchy.

#8 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » The test for SG1 has been restarted » 26.09.2017 03:53:37

I still have many questions / doubts about the ruleset.

1. What will unitwaittime be set to on the real game. Presumably you had to turn it off for the test game.

2. What is the revolution length. It has always been 2 on longturn games. Predictable and fair to all. In the test game I got 1. Is it just random. and I got  lucky, or is it really set to 1.

3. Catapult / Cannon ... do not get the veteran bonus when built at a city with a barracks. Is this deliberate?
In civ2civ3 these units are "Big Land" class but here they have become "Big Siege".
The barracks includes the veterancy effect for  "Big Land" but not  "Big Siege".
These units cannot now be carried on a galleon.

Mech Infantry and Armor are still  "Big Land"
This leads to the odd situation that they will get the veterancy bonuses.
And they can be carried on a galleon, whereas Catapult / Cannon cannot.

I assume the "Big Siege" class should have been added into the effects rulest for barracks and galleon.

4. Why are workers capturable but engineers are not?

#9 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » All seems to be working on the test game? » 24.09.2017 04:45:29

Wieder, thanks for fixing these bugs. Am glad we did the test games first. Yes. I will continue to play.

#10 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » SG1 test game restarted » 24.09.2017 04:43:26

Foodbox for larger cities is now 40 instead of 4. This slows down the growth slightly. It took me 80 turns to get size 40 cities instead of 50.
Science is still fast. Playing alone with 6 cities, it took me 100 turns to get flight. In a real game science will be much faster than this, because of the transfer of tech.

The advantage of such a fast game is that it could be finished by Christmas.

#11 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » All seems to be working on the test game? » 23.09.2017 07:13:15

Here's a look at the granary box for Vienna at size 5. You only need 2 food to grow.
After about size 8 this grows to 4 food. It remains at 4 as far as I tested upto size 40.


The faulty settings are presumably in game.ruleset here

; Parameters used to generalize the calculation of city granary size:
;   if city_size <= num_inis:
;     city_granary_size = (granary_food_ini[city_size] * foodbox / 100)
;   if city_size > num_inis;
;     city_granary_size = (granary_food_ini[num_inis] +
;        granary_food_inc * (city_size - num_inis)) * foodbox / 100
granary_food_ini = 20
granary_food_inc = 10

#12 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » All seems to be working on the test game? » 22.09.2017 18:32:27

I just played the test game. As it stands now I am not interested in continuing.

Yes. Science is much too fast. City growth is much too fast.

#13 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 24.03.2015 19:20:51

Hi - sorry for delay have been busy the last two weeks.
Have just tested my ruleset - it works.
The game will be fast. - 75 turns to complete the tech tree and 8 turns for the spaceship to travel.
If we start soon then the game will be finished before the summer holidays.
Will fully discuss the ruleset tomorrow.

#14 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 09.03.2015 12:49:41

Release Candidate 2 of version 2.5 is now out. It has maglev graphics. It also has new graphics for the pre-fortress base (renamed to Outpost).
I have added these changes to the LTex25 ruleset and hope to upload a test ruleset soon.
No need to wait any longer.

#15 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 04.03.2015 11:37:44

I'd prefer to start with the graphics we need actually included in the tileset from the start.
For example the maglev graphic will be released in the upcoming rc2
see http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/NEWS-2.5.0-RC2

#16 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 02.03.2015 06:10:06

Getting closer to game time. Release Candidate 1 of version 2.5 is now out. I expect rc2 to be next week and then the final version in 2 weeks.
Am suggesting a start date for LTex25 soon after 21st March.

#17 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 12.02.2015 14:52:33

According to freeciv-dev the release of 2.5 will be in a few weeks. I would like to start this game a week or two after that.

Attempt to release 2.5.0-RC1 next weekend (21/22 Feb).
Earliest possible 2.5.0 is 28 Feb. (So technically we could hit
advertised February release, but March is more likely.)

#18 Re: LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 04.02.2015 07:14:11

maho wrote:

I would love to play such game. However - I'm afraid that 7 cities is too small economy to build advanced army ....

Those 7 cities would have to provide an economy to build both a spaceship and an advanced army. Assuming we set rapturedelay to 1 and increase the city radius then it should easily be possible to get size 60+ cities with all improvements. Each city like this should have the capacity to build 3 good units each turn.

It is not intended to be an intense game which takes hours each turn to micromanage. Having 100s of units to fight with each turn takes way too long. Similarly micromanaging dozens of cities in the end game is overly time consuming. I think spies should only be available at the very end of the game because defending against the threat of city poisoning or sabotage is also too time consuming.

I am still burnt out from the intensity of LT32 and am looking forward to a game where you only need to play for 5 minutes each day but can still look forward to being in the thick of the action at the end.

#19 LTeX25 » 7 city challenge - quick scenario game for version 2.5 » 03.02.2015 15:26:56

Replies: 11

From an earlier thread  -

akfaew wrote:

Instead of the usual experimental game, perhaps we can have a quick and rapid scenario game, where each player gets 7 settlers and cannot build more. Science would be cut short accordingly. Note that having 7 and not 4 settlers will greatly increase game speed. City radius can be increased further, to make cities even more valuable. Defences of cities of size greater than 16 can be increased.

I am happy to put together such a ruleset and admin a small scenario game like this. I intend this to be fast ~ 3 or 4 months, and to have a spaceship win condition, no teams or big alliances. No cities can be captured / incited . just destroyed. Every player get 1 free tech each turn regardless of science. No other method of getting tech.

The aim is to quickly go through the entire tech tree and test the latter stage military units. Everyone gets to the end of the tech tree at the same turn, everyone launches a spaceship and then all hell breaks loose as everyone tries to destroy each others cities before any spaceship lands.

Is anyone interested?

#20 Re: LT34 » How many turns for LT34? (without a turn limit) » 18.12.2014 13:25:57

maho wrote:

I love massive warriors battles.

Me too! I really hate the idea that warriors might become noveteran.

Kryon wrote:

The biggest reason LT32 lasted 230 turns is restrictinfra was ON.

Not really. restrictinfra  really only effects the early and middle part of the game.
In LT32 science was really slow, so we never finished the tech tree.

wieder wrote:

LT32 lasted over 230 turns and I personally think that was way too many turns.

I liked LT32. It had the best settings I have played. I wouldn't play another like it for a long time though.
Instead I think most games should be deliberately made shorter than this.
I suggest 120 turns could be an aimed for length.
I think shorter, more frequent, more varied games are something longturn should aim for.

#21 Re: LT33 » Victory declaration » 12.12.2014 07:54:32

Nice map - I browsed it briefly looking for 'star' units. I spotted 3 'star' engineers but no others.
Can someone confirm if this is correct.
If true I would lower the chance to promote workers/engineers once more to reflect how hard it is to get 'stars' of other unit types.

#22 Re: LT34 » Picking & locating the team members if LT34 is a team game » 11.12.2014 16:10:29

Corbeau wrote:

But still members of the team are placed together?

Depends on what you mean by together? The server places team mates close to each other, yes. But sometimes not on the same island.
In LT15 a team game using freeciv 2.1 Kryon playing his first game was separated from his team.
My team was together as a group of five on an island. Kryon was there too, a short distance from his teammates who were all on the main continent a few tiles away.
Not surprisingly Kryon didn't win his first game.

Random placement is definitely not fair but it is occasionally amusing.

#23 Re: LT34 » Picking & locating the team members if LT34 is a team game » 10.12.2014 16:39:24

Mmm2 - I am leaning towards your idea of completely random small teams for this game. (random unknown map, random placement, random teams)
reasons :
- its easier to set up,
- this game is potentially a test game for 2.5 so may run into problems,
- I don't see many experienced players wanting to be captains,
- random games are probably much quicker
- and its fun to try something new.
I offer to admin LT36 as a non-random team game. (known map, chosen placement, selected  teams)

#24 Re: LT34 » Picking & locating the team members if LT34 is a team game » 09.12.2014 05:49:52

StratThinker wrote:

I really like the idea of teams so that I have someone to learn from, but idlers made LT32 not so nice; some team suffered from idlers, while others benefited by delegating for their idlers.  I cannot think of a way around this which is not more complicated than one of the point system for limiting allaince size, hence I vote for a teamless game.

I agree this is an important issue that needs fixing, but I can think of an easy (temporary!) fix. Allow a person who is not playing complete control to remove idlers and rearrange teams if they become unbalanced. The issue of idlers really only effects team games that have balanced teams, (the games I prefer). It doesn't really matter about idlers with random teams or self-chosen teams.

edrim wrote:

As I will not play a team game, i think i can make quite nice pregame for team leaders to pick their locations.
For eg. it will not be map reveal but i will only make a screen with locations without terian and ocean.
Leaders will know where are the picking spots are but they will not know what resources and terian is there.
And it will be not known for everyone where is everyone else except team leaders will know where they put his teammates.
I know this is less understadable but i will write whole system in best easy way to get it.

Thanks Edrim. I am interested in trying this.

#25 Re: LTeX25 » LTeX25 preparation » 05.12.2014 17:33:13

Next setting to check is a new building called Government Center which has the  "Gov_Center" effect. Corruption and waste are calculated from the nearest Government Center. The Palace is automatically a Government Center by default.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB