#1 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » SG1 comments from IRC. Channel #longturn on Freenode » 05.12.2017 00:38:37

-
" that was about 70 turn game ended right after Steel with a game ending wonder unifying Germany"
No - the first 5 Bismark wonders had been built quite a while ago. We extended the game to have some fun attacking idler cities.

#2 ScenarioGame 1 » Game Over - Bismark Tower is in Koblenz » 05.12.2017 00:33:52

kevin551
Replies: 0

The final scores are below. The winning player is Los Pepes who built the Bismark wonder.

The game was a science race between the North and the South, which the South easily won. No major combat between active players occurred.
The two alliances on the South shared tech but did not fight together.
The winning alliance of Kevin551 and Los Pepes managed to take out 3 of the idler nations.

sg1-scoresb7qql.png

#3 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 21.11.2017 04:55:05

-
Here's the trick for using warriors.
1/ sell all level 1 barracks
2/ build 40 green warriors cost 10 shields each.
3/ build Leonardo's cost 200 shields
4/ after 20 turns disband 40 green musketeers for 20 shields each. gain = 800 - 600 = 200 shields
5/ the cost of maintaining those 40 units is offset by never having to build a level 2 barracks.
6/ you also get to have a huge defensive army, just in case there is ever any actual fighting.

It's a defensive strategy, which lost out in this game to the simpler 'build Copernicus and universities' strategy.
To make this an offensive strategy add the Sun Tzu wonder, keep the level 1 barracks and upgrade v2 warriors into v musketeers.

There never was any fighting, so the warriors waiting to upgrade, the muskets waiting to disband, and the caravan drivers waiting to build Bismark Tower are all drinking in that bar!

#4 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 19.11.2017 09:03:49

-
The game is progressing even faster now. There are about 2 weeks left.
So time for some more comments on the second stage of the game. (Before gunpowder)

1/.  Food and science are too fast. Growth is way too fast. Small Wonders are too cheap. Wonders are too expensive.

2/. Warriors, which were useless in the early game, became the standard unit in the mid game. Cheapest unit for Leonardo's to upgrade.
Sadly despite now having a huge army built really cheaply, the game will end long before I use them.
Hence the cost of warriors cannot be decreased, to match the cheaper units in the early game.

The swordsman / trireme combo is way too powerful in the early game.
This combo can bypass the restriction on slow travel in enemy territory and quickly capture cities.
Despite this the many idlers in this game were mostly left alone?

Knights are unusually powerful. Normally this unit is worthless because it appears just before gunpowder.
But in this ruleset they are so cheap, 25 gold, and have extra vision.
They are worth building just to put on a fortress and gain the extra tile of vision.
The other mounted units Chariots and Elephants were too expensive and had no advantages.

I still think the veterancy for workers / engineers progresses way too fast. But yes, it uses the same power factors as regular units. We certainly don't want to reduce those. It leads to everyone having workers of level 4 and above, but no-one having a troop above level 3.

#5 Re: ScenarioGame 1 » Suggestions for the next Ruleset. » 17.10.2017 16:29:47

Sketlux wrote:

... its simply catapulting the game forward to my discontent and we are moving too fast towards steel...

Yes. I too am disappointed by the pace of research. It was obvious from the test game that this would be a very fast game, with only 1 viable strategy.
It's a shame this is a good map.

Wieder - my comments about catapults being useless in the early game, refers to the part of the game before construction.
Perhaps catapults / cannon may have a use later.

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

kevin551
Replies: 18

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.

#7 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.

#8 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.

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

Okay.
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.

#10 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.

#11 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?

#12 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.

#13 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?

#14 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.

#15 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.

#16 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.

Vienna

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

#17 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.

#18 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.

#19 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.

#20 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

#21 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.

#22 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.)

#23 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.

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

kevin551
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?

#25 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.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB